More Type 23 in variants?

[zen]

In 1994 the RN looked at building two of the last batch of T23s (or another pair) as AAW ships as interim fillers as CNGF dragged on and was delayed.
The changes were minimal, designed to be implemented in a short time and basically involved adding Type 1022, JTIDS and AAW command facilities. The hangar would only accommodate one Lynx, but Merlin could still land on the helipad. ASW capability was retained, no change to the Sea Wolf GWS.26, apart from resited directors.

There were three preliminary study options.

I'm going to just throw this in, I know it's a bit AH.....but.....had the stretched Batch 2 version been built on those last 4, then conversion to a limited AAW ship would have been easier.
Which means cutting that out for cost reasons has probably cost far, far, far more than any savings accrued.

In fact in further evolution, continuing production of developed Type 23 would have allowed the one-for-one replacement of Type 42 and likely won export orders.

I know, I know, all AH really, but continuing production of Type 23 was the most efficient way forward.

 

[zen]

Assuming the Batch 2 version was designed and built for a start, the last 4 of 16 ordered would be of this variant.
So instead of 436 ft 4 in long, these would be 32.8ft longer resulting in 469.05ft.
This providing for 48 vls cells of Sea Wolf and a 5" gun. Possibly with port and starboard Goalkeeper or Phalanx.

These would then take the place of some Type 22s.

Arguably the first would take longest to complete and yet by laying down by '94 still complete by '97 though possibly 1998.

Laid April '97, comissioned June 2000
Laid Jan '98, comissioned May 2001
Laid April '99, comissioned June 2002

This means that a backup design to CNGF could be devised for start in 2000 and comission by 2005. At a likely cost of less than £400 million, some 187 million being for PAAMS. But not including missile cost.

Designated Type 43, this would fit PAAMS into a further enlarged development of 6,400tons with some 48 vls silos. Avoiding the risks of the WR.21 IEP and the optimism that led to.a lack of diesel plant.

That would likely be intigrated on a trials ship....

Some 9 would be ordered through 2000 to 2008 due to the next 3 being cancelled in 2007 due to the financial crisis.

Replacement would be aiming for commissioning first 2030 to 2035. Depending on any life extension programs.

Key question. Exports?
Potential for Batch 2 from 1996 through to 1999.

Export AAW version available from 2004 to 2013.

 

[Yellow Palace]

Four ships is awkward, ordering patterns were:

• One ship in 1984
• Three in 1986
• Three in 1988
• Three in 1989
• Three in 1992
• Three in 1996
• Six Type 45 in 2000
• (crickets)

Your 'Batch 2' ships would likely fit this pattern of three ships every two years (noting that the 1990 ships were ordered in 1989). The obvious gaps to fill are 1994 and 1998. Three ships every two years, with a hull life of 30 years - let's be real, the 18 year Type 23 life was never going to happen - gives you a sustained fleet of 45 ships.

So far as ship fit goes, the maximal Batch 2 (there actually are differences between Batch 1 and Batch 2, but relatively minor ones) was never well defined. Jane's 1989-1990 suggests a 7m stretch for one or two Goalkeepers. In any case this probably wouldn't be available for order before 1992.

An AAW ship with PAAMS couldn't be ordered any earlier than 2000. Giving up the theoretical benefits of ICR would require either a larger or (theoretically) less capable ship than Type 45. In either case it would need a totally new hull, it would never fit on a Type 23 even with a hull plug.

Realistically I think the best that can be hoped for is:

• Ten T23B1 as historical
• Twelve T23B2, three each in 1992, 1994, 1996, and 1998
• T45, in whatever form, from 2000

We can assume a 'go-slow' on the 1998 orders to occupy the yard(s) until T45 comes along. It's open to question whether they go to Swan Hunter or Marconi/BAE in Scotstoun. If the former, it will help with LSD(A) delivery.

In any case, the wheels will rapidly fall off the wagon between 2001 and 2009 unless world events proceed very differently.

 

[zen]

Designated Type 43, this would fit PAAMS into a further enlarged development of 6,400tons with some 48 vls silos.

Which is the answer to...

In either case it would need a totally new hull, it would never fit on a Type 23 even with a hull plug.

And was a real study at the time.

Remembering that Horizon was a 64 silo design and that's why talk of TLAM and various Standard developments were talked about at the time and why there was space for 24 Sea Ceptor cells available.

The chief gripe of my notional Type 43 here. Derived from T23 propulsion and a scaled up hull. Is obviously the less efficient machinery plant.

None of this has required the addition of AH missile systems or machinery.

I'll note 45 ships is quite attractive.

And yes, post 2007 crisis and funding crunches from 2008 to the Coalition of 2010, means orders get cut short.

 

[MSP78]

I'm going to just throw this in, I know it's a bit AH.....but.....had the stretched Batch 2 version been built on those last 4, then conversion to a limited AAW ship would have been easier.
Which means cutting that out for cost reasons has probably cost far, far, far more than any savings accrued.

In fact in further evolution, continuing production of developed Type 23 would have allowed the one-for-one replacement of Type 42 and likely won export orders.

I know, I know, all AH really, but continuing production of Type 23 was the most efficient way forward.

How effective an AAW platform would a hypothetical AAW variant of the T23 be? Particularly if replacing some earlier T42 hulls. I am thinking in terms of AAW weapons primarily, particularly if this is just GWS.26. The options for anything with longer range seem limited, at least within the likely time frames of these ships being commissioned.

 

[zen]

Two...maybe three maybe four tracks.
1. Is UK PAAMS with Aster

2. Is UK NAAWS possibly with ASAM-1 (think ESSM or NSAMS but earlier and using a 10" diameter motor)

3. Is funding GWS.27 and development of a longer ranged effector using the same technology.

4. Is a GWS.31 using developments of Sea Dart possibly some sort of ADAWS 2000 revision.

A fifth would take FLAME and apply developments for a SAM.

 

[MSP78]

Two...maybe three maybe four tracks.
1. Is UK PAAMS with Aster

2. Is UK NAAWS possibly with ASAM-1 (think ESSM or NSAMS but earlier and using a 10" diameter motor)

3. Is funding GWS.27 and development of a longer ranged effector using the same technology.

4. Is a GWS.31 using developments of Sea Dart possibly some sort of ADAWS 2000 revision.

A fifth would take FLAME and apply developments for a SAM.

I don't know how realistic it is but option 3 is one that interested me. I guess it would need a decision be made on an AAW T23 prior to GWS27 cancellation? But for an AAW T23 a worthy successor to T42 and Sea Dart, a GWS27 with a larger booster stage would be needed. How feasible is that as a development of the standard GWS27, which I assume would look not dissimilar to GWS26.

 

[zen]

GWS.27 was intended for AESA replacing guidance sets (yes I've forgotten their precise designattoon) and using ARH on the missile.

It's likely this would drive a much improved Sea Wolf missile and various booster options.

 

[uk 75]

If you have a stretched Type 23 available you could do what Norway and Spain did and go for four ships with a VLS farm and Aegis.
This would permit the T42 to leave service sooner while giving cover until the T45 arrives.
I think for all its problems T45 with PAAMS is better than AEGIS though a UK KONGO class is tempting.