UK Naval defense fraud in the 80s?

S

starviking

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
29 September 2006
Messages
1,628
Reaction score
1,026
The UK Independence Party has a new deputy leader: Christopher Monckton. As is usual with such news the party has put his impressive CV up on their website: http://www.ukip.org/content/latest-news/1675-christopher-a-man-of-many-talents

However, he claims that whilst a member of Margaret Thatcher's Policy Unit he did:

"hydrodynamic analysis of warship hull-forms to expose a major Defense fraud."

The only controversy over warship hull forms over that period that I can recall is the "Short, Fat Frigate" that some independent naval architects were pushing over the in-house RN designs. Thatcher was for the independents, and opposed to the RN staff - so I have to assume that Monckton is referring to the RN Design Staff as fraudsters. As I recall, the "Short, Fat Frigate" was shown to be rubbish - so Monckton is also dead wrong in his statement.

Anyone with a more in-depth knowledge of the SFF debate like to add to this?
 
Without going much further into SFF itself, I did come across a reference that appears to confirm that Monckton's claim is related to this:

http://www.desmogblog.com/moncktongoes-postal-over-realscience-riposte

Scroll on down to Ian Forrester's second comment. It links to a 1985 Times article that apparently mention's Monckton's role in the SFF "debate." The gist appears to be that Monckton organized a meeting of SFF proponents. Sadly, it's behind a pay wall and I don't feel inclined to spend 5 pounds to see the details.
 
"As I recall, the "Short, Fat Frigate" was shown to be rubbish"

I dont think it was, the establishment won the fight and Type 23 was ordered but there was no conclusive winner in the argument. several smaller vessels with the SFF hullform were built for the navies of Denmark and Burma and to the best of my knowledge they delivered the characteristics promised
 
Should be 'defence', not 'defense'. UKIP spelling like Americans on ther CVs! :eek:

SFF hull form, like all others, no doubt had some virtues. But it seems that those built as patrol craft were not all that great:

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=qM4OAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA116&lpg=PA116&dq=fast+ship+short+fat+frigate&source=bl&ots=ewAsq3xUag&sig=GF3AjzA8kcH8N9LGyx_kGhbLbSU&hl=en&ei=sLJfTpisGI2s8QPYn_jQAw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CDAQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=fast%20ship%20short%20fat%20frigate&f=false

As for SFF, I think the people behind it ended up pushing the FastShip:

http://www.fastshipatlantic.com/
 
razor said:
....several smaller vessels with the SFF hullform were built for the navies of Denmark....
Click to expand...

Which ship type was that? The StanFlex 300?

Regards & all,

Thomas L. Nielsen
Luxembourg (expat Dane)
 
I dont think it was, the establishment won the fight and Type 23 was ordered but there was no conclusive winner in the argument.
Click to expand...

The MoD commissioned Lloyd's Register to conduct an independent inquiry into the hullform. The Sirius design proposed by TGA as an alternative to the Type 23 included other aspects, such as machinery choice, but these were not covered in the LR inquiry.

The various claims for the SFF concept - which was an adaption of an otherwise successful round bilge planing craft hullform to frigate size - were assessed, with some being supported, others shown to not be the case and with the overall assessment being that there was no overall advantage in the SFF proposal. In some cases advantages were outweighed by disadvantages more relevant to the Type 23's role as an ASW ship (for example, seakeeping at low speeds and noise were both inferior to the Type 23 design).

It should be noted that the Sirius (S90) design didn't meet NSR 7069 (Type 23) for other reasons, and so LR and TGA developed three variants - S102 (LR), S110 and S115 (TGA) which were instead assessed in the inquiry.

I would also point out that the SFF is not simply a matter of L/B ratio. The hullform also has broad, flat V-sections aft with a long run and only a short length of flat keel - if any - which is very far forward.

I illustrated the S90 and S102 designs from the LR report in the shipbucket style, which are shown here:


http://rp-one.net/shipbucket_profiles/profiles_sea_sb_1.html#image_13

http://rp-one.net/shipbucket_profiles/profiles_sea_sb_1.html#image_14

As an aside - I occasionally see people claim that the SFF hullform has been used on all manner of vessels, purely based on the L/B - which is frequently the overall dimensions rather than waterline, but is there any actual documentation - or a photograph of the hull for that matter - to show this? Given the established performance of the hullform at smaller scales I would expect a FAC or patrol boat to have used it, but would like to have some actual evidence.

Regards,

RP1

Declaration: I work at UCL, which provides NA and ME training for the MoD and RN and so is part of "The Establishment". Also, my first Prof. was the designer of the Type 23 hullform - although he never mentioned the SFF as far as I recall.

[Edits to correct a typo and remove unintended snark]
 
A video that casts some light - first part has pictures of actual and proposed designs using the Thornycroft Giles hullform (including an LCS proposal called Prelude), followed by video showing model trials of SFF and the TG770 Fast Ship that came after it. Seems the latter is part of a BBC documentary, with Robbie Coltrane doing the voiceover:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mj5qVNE7G9c

Design rights to 'SFF-like' ships now lie with House of Santon Maritime (sounds like a BBC response to Downton Abbey, but isn't).

http://houseofsanton.com/wp/
 
http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/the-russian-military-despises-this-strange-wedge-shaped-1648132968
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom