British Type 24 & 25 Frigates

[wasteland]

Does anyone have any information on the British Type 24 and 25 frigate designs my interest was peaked by the Royal Navy type designation page in wikipedia

Type 24
I did a little reseach on this, but found confusing information. " A cheap ship, entended for export with a towed sonar array intended for ASW" according to wikipedia, sounds like the original mission for the Type 23. I did find a picture once that looked like a barely modified type 21, I think it was in a magazines online archive, but i've long since misplaced it.

Type 25
I found very little information regarding this design apparently a low cost type 22

Any designs, specs or opinions would be greatly appreciated

Thanks

 

[smurf]

'Rebuilding the Royal Navy' Brown & Moore pp107-109 has artist's impressions and says of type 25

When the Type 24 [a commercial, Yarrow, design originally] failed to attract customers, the design team developed it into a ship with almost the capability of a Type 22 at 3/4 the cost. It was not adopted but much of the thinking ... went into the Type 23.

More discussion with a good profile of Type 24 in Friedman's British Destroyers, p305-306.

 

[Pirate Pete]

I posted an illustration and data from an Naval Publication on WPD3.





Pete

 

[JohnR]

I prefer what must have been the earlier concept of the T24 featured in Brown's Rebuilding the Royal Navy, which had only a single mast. Brown also comments that the design feature greater hull depth so the it could carry a towed array, however when the design was handed over to commercial designers they reduced the deck head height which meant a towed array could not be carried - meaning the Royal Navy would never adopt it.

The only image I have seen is the artist impression feature in Brown's Future British Surface Fleet. I have only one thing to say about it UGLY.

 

[wasteland]

Was this a comparision study to the type 23 as an alternative or a later study for an export oriented ship to be operated by the RN such as the type 21.

A do agree that is not a hansome looking ship!

 

[JohnR]

The Type 25 was; rather strangley, designed in advance of the T23. The T25 was an attempt to develop a ship approaching T22's capability at three quarters of its cost.

What emerged was essentially a single ended T22, Batch 1, exlusively intended for ASW ops on the GIUK gap. The only concesssion to other roles was a six barrel Sea Wolf system forward. One particular of the T25 that transferred into the T23 this the silent electric drive system in order to optimise the performance of the towed array.

The T24 was developed with an eye on the export market, but was hopped to be sold to the RN to give it official "approval" to improve its attrativeness - the design does; IMHO, bear a resemblence in concept to the Italian Lupo class which was a great export success.

 

[Triton]

Model of Type 24. The design was intended to be a cheap frigate, mainly for export, which could be completed with a wide range of armaments made possible by a relatively small superstructure and single mast. In Royal Navy service it would have functioned as a towed array ASW ship.

Source: Rebuilding the Royal Navy: Warship Design Since 1945 by David K. Brown and George Moore, Chatham Publishing/Naval Institute Press, 2003.

 

[RP1]

The Type 25 was; rather strangley, designed in advance of the T23

I'm not quite sure if this is the case. 23, 24 and 25 all seem to have been outputs of the Future Light Frigate, ASW Light Frigate and ASW Corvette design studies in the 1970's, with Type 23 becoming official in 1980, but with the stated starting point being the ASWLF and ASW-C designs [1].

One particular of the T25 that transferred into the T23 this the silent electric drive system

Also the T24 provided the hullform that was eventually used in the T23.

The T24 was developed with an eye on the export market, but was hopped to be sold to the RN to give it official "approval" to improve its attrativeness

IIRC the prospect of actual sales was quite remote. Instead the RN would issue a statement along the lines of "We're not looking for a frigate right now, but if we were, this is the one we would choose". Of course once the design was handed off to industry the intent of some of the features (superstructure configuration and towed array installation) was lost, so making it less attractive for the RN - but transmitting design intent is always difficult.

RP1

[1] "An Overview of Surface Warship Design Practice", UCL Mech. Eng / MoD publication, 1989/1996, used for training NA's at UCL, describes the development of the T23 with a great big Gantt chart.

 

[Triton]

Artist impression of Type 25 frigate. When the Type 24 frigate failed to attract customers, the design team developed it into a ship with almost the capability of a Type 22 at three-quarters the cost. It was not adopted, but much of the thinking, including the diesel-electric quiet machinery, went into the Type 23.

Source: Rebuilding the Royal Navy: Warship Design Since 1945 by David K. Brown and George Moore, Chatham Publishing/Naval Institute Press, 2003.

 

[starviking]

Artist impression of Type 25 frigate. When the Type 24 frigate failed to attract customers, the design team developed it into a ship with almost the capability of a Type 22 at three-quarters the cost. It was not adopted, but much of the thinking, including the diesel-electric quiet machinery, went into the Type 23.

Source: Rebuilding the Royal Navy: Warship Design Since 1945 by David K. Brown and George Moore, Chatham Publishing/Naval Institute Press, 2003.

I've heard the phrase "clean lines" being used to complement ships - but that ship is just too clean.

I like the cruiser-style bridge however.

 

[wasteland]

The type 25 seems an odd design, the hull form of the type 23 but seemingly few weapon systems forward of the bridge. Unless it has a VLS I can't see, it seems under armed allot of space unused unless it was a fitted for but not with the great cop out! or maybe to leave space for different equipment fits for the export market. I suppose if it shares a similar hull to the type 23 the dimension and displacement would be roughly similar?

 

[Antonio]

Type 24

Source: Aviation et Marine International February 1980

 

[RP1]

Unless it has a VLS I can't see, it seems under armed allot of space unused

The 6-round Seawolf launcher requires some below decks space, so this configuration probably has a similar amount of space devoted to GWS-25 as a T23 does to GWS-26. Main difference is the lack of a 4.5 in MCG.

or maybe to leave space for different equipment fits for the export market

The "long and low" superstructure was used for exactly this reason - weapons could be positioned on either beam or on the superstructure.

a similar hull to the type 23 the dimension and displacement would be roughly similar?

I've chatted with (Prof) David Andrews on this and that's the assumption I'm using for my on-and-off 3D model of the T24. The hullform was originally developed in the T24/25 studies and then carried forward in the "big" T23 (what we got, kind of), which replace the cancelled "small" T23, a limited capability ASW tug.

RP1

 

[Antonio]

Type 24 art

 

[Triton]

Thank you, pometablava.

 

[RP1]

Quite spartan (an misidentified) Type 24 Model in the NMM collection:


http://collections.rmg.co.uk/collections/objects/66323.html


I checked with the boss and yes, the aft SW was arranged asymmetrically, to conserve stability. The resulting arcs were thought to be acceptable.


RP1

 

[Yellow Palace]

There's a much more complete model (right down to a couple engaged in, ah, cardiovascular exercise, in the hangar ) of the Type 24 sitting in my line manager's office. Actually, it's the official builders' display model. Sadly, security would throw a fit at me taking photographs of it.

Actually, there's also models of several other interesting projects, including a SWATH towed-array surveillance ship - and I'm sure that the archive of other companies' projects still exists, somewhere. I've not seen it in four years, but there were
at least four lever-arch binders bursting at the seams with sales brochures.

 

[Grey Havoc]

Now where did I put those burglary tools....

 

[Abraham Gubler]

I checked with the boss and yes, the aft SW was arranged asymmetrically, to conserve stability. The resulting arcs were thought to be acceptable.

You wouldn’t think it would add much to the Seawolf engagement zone still being limited to the single fire control radar forward above the bridge. It (the FCR) couldn’t look much further to the starboard rear quarter than the forward missile launcher could train. But I guess six extra ready to fire missiles to cover starboard shouldn’t be sniffed at.

 

[thebig C]

Jez, I'd love to see that model RBLH. Not sure its worth getting fired for though

C

 

[RP1]

RE: SWATH: I have a photo of a Yarrow "Sonar Support Vessel" which may be familiar...


RP1

 

[RP1]

Back to T24... this is a figure Prof. has used a couple of times, and Friedman has a hand-drawn version of it in his Destroyers and Frigates.


What is interesting is that in these images, there is an aft tracker, which I had assumed was on the centreline. What it now looks like is that it was to port, and the launcher was to starboard. Whether the NMM model is of a variant, or is just missing the tracker I don't know - the deckhouse could be a RU magazine. I am aware that *some* versions of SW could use the "wrong" director, so to speak, so having an additional launcher for a single director would still be useful.


I was/am making a CG model of the (MoD) T24, and this changes my assumptions about the flexibility a bit. Of course, the four-round SW launcher and lighter (i.e. not all-weather) directors may have allowed a symmetric arrangement.


RP1

 

[Hobbes]

It (the FCR) couldn’t look much further to the starboard rear quarter than the forward missile launcher could train. But I guess six extra ready to fire missiles to cover starboard shouldn’t be sniffed at.

Would they cover starboard only? Or would it be possible to elevate the launcher to near 90deg and fire over the stack ?

 

[RP1]

Would they cover starboard only? Or would it be possible to elevate the launcher to near 90deg and fire over the stack ?

Well, SW is command-guided, so it is fired into a wide gathering beam using inertial guidance, whereupon the tracker sees it and starts telling it what to whilst tracking it (and the target) with much narrower beams. In theory, if the missile can be told to bunt over after launch - much like VLSW is, I suppose, then it can be fired over an obstacle. Alternatively if the gathering beam were elevated then the missile and beam could be dropped down after it was under control.


Of course, all this would take time - not a luxury for a PDMS! And complexity (read cost) - not a luxury for the MoD!


More practically, I don't think there would be much enthusiasm for firing a missile over structure. Generally we want all the momentum going *away* from the ship. Consider what happens if one of the fins decides to stay in the launcher?


RP1

 

[JFC Fuller]

RP1,

The more I look at the NMM model the more I suspect that the aft tracker is just missing. There is a large raised box on the opposite side of the aft superstructure to the Sea Wolf launcher that seems perfectly sized for mounting the director, it would also give the director a view over the top of the aft-launcher.

Have you reported the mis-identification to the NMM? They are actually pretty good at following up and I have corrected one or two already.

 

[thebig C]

Anybody else unable to access the NMM link above??

C

 

[RP1]

Works fine for me.


RP1

 

[thebig C]

Hey

At post 20 on the link below there is a nice render of an early Type 23 as mentioned above:

http://warships1discussionboards.yuku.com/topic/1378/FUTURE-OPERATING-PATTERNS#.Um_SxymvnIU

C

 

[uk 75]

This old thread is worth resurrecting for the information it contains on RN frigates designs that evolved intio the Type 23.

They could have gone into a Haynes Manual on the Type 23 or similar.