Keeping an old warship in service. in The Royal Navy Forum

RSS
Email

0 Points

Keeping an old warship in service.

Author	Comment
john daniels	Keeping an old warship in service.	Lead	[-]
Posts: 528 ( 6-Feb-2012 14:03:20) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Remove this ad Its a question I have been asking to myself for a while. I am not suggesting the RN do this but when you look at the T21s and T22BIs still in service you have to wonder how long a warship can last. I know Bangladesh may still run ancient Cat and Cathedral class frigates and there are one or two Leanders still knocking around. So, how easy is it to keep a warship in service? If you want to keep it reasonably up to date there are plenty of off the shelf systems that can be bought, Sea Ram, Sea Giraffe, modern guns etc. How hard would it be to re-engineer an elderly gas turbine ship? They are after all equipped with semi-modular propulstion. So, for example at T21 - get rid of the expensive to run Olympus and replace with G30 gas turbines - either 4 as a Tyne replacesment or 2 with two modern diesels. And what about replacing generators with the latest spec kit? This sort of thing happens on commercial vessels. I guess cost would be the main issue, but if you are a navy looking for a couple of decades use out of a hull with modernised electronics and new bolt on weapons, would it make sense?
Graeme65		#1	[-]
Posts: 603 ( 6-Feb-2012 15:05:02) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	I am sure you can press some pretty decent wine into an old bottle, provided you are willing to throw some substantial resources at it. In reality though you will eventually come up against a cost comparison between the price of a SLEP and the cost of new build with all the advantages of designing a new ship to comply with modern needs, such as accommodation standards, and the like. Once you reach this point you also have to consider the need to keep your design and build capability in being. By now new frigates against recycled old ones are probably looking the better deal. I am sure the calculation varies with the ship though, what is true of frigates is not necessarily the case with super carriers and ocean liners.
john daniels		#2	[-]
Posts: 529 ( 6-Feb-2012 15:54:05) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	I suppose it always comes down to economics. I was thinking alsong the lines of a country that can write off the initial cost of the warship - they get it cheap or free as part of some sort of aid deal - then they re-arm it. The Counties got upgrades - but not to things like machinery and radar - diesels in place of the Metrovick GTs would have given them a great economic cruise capability and considering the new owner planned a 20 plus year life for them I wondered if it would make sense. Take a T21. Fit a 76MM gun, off the shelf command system/sensors, Sea Ram and some sort of anti-ship capability - or even accomodation for a state of the art helo with that capablity and you have a decent little warship. Make her economical to run with drop in engines - dieses in place of Tyne, a bit of care with the hull and keep her out of heavy ops like slamming through the Atlantic and you've got a couple of decades life left in the ship. Not the best quietest most stealthy platform, but more than enough to wave the flag, enforce TTW peace keeping, pirate hunting etc. Ships used to be SLEPd quite a lot.
jock		#3	[-]
Posts: 1438 ( 6-Feb-2012 17:06:31) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Another example of course is the ex Hermes still going strong 53 years after after entering RN service, more than twice the years served by her contempories Ark, Eagle, Albion, Bulwark & Centaur
Graeme65		#4	[-]
Posts: 604 ( 6-Feb-2012 17:22:04) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	I think the last Counties make an interesting study. They are good sound hulls but ended up on the wrong side of rapidly changing technologies and circumstances. At the time they were designed and built they were COSAG ships in what was still mainly a steam powered navy and could follow a fleet carrier around the world through various seas states and be relatively self contained. However by the time even the first of them were not much more than ten years old, carriers and steam were beginning to be things of the past. Add to that a first generation AA missile system that had been superseded and their manning requirements and you can see why they were not kept long. Had things been different and carriers remained in the fleet then it may have made sense to get 30 odd years out of them and done a major mid-life update. This would also assume that teh Type 82 was dropped as too expensive and 8 rebuilt Counties were preferable to 14 new buld Type 42s. That said it may simply have been completely impractical to turn a SeaSlug County into a SeaDart County. Also not at all sure swapping the Metrovik turbines for diesels is at all practicable, they were the boost engines not the cruise and I would guess that they would output a very different rpm to the gearbox. Though I am just guessing as I am an archaeologist not an engineer. I have a soft spot for the Type 21s, they were handsome little ships, but seem to have suffered from being basic vessels with limited upgrade margins and very much suited to upgrade by replacement. If you are looking at smaller navies with a lower vessel use rate then we only have to look at the RN ships that were sold in the second hand market to see what life you can get out of them. By the way Jock's post does bring home how much the UK has spent on new-build and how little return we have had from much of it!
john daniels		#5	[-]
Posts: 530 ( 6-Feb-2012 18:43:57) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Makes you wonder what life we could get out of the later T23s. We wil always have a need for a general purpous ship - something maybe not to put in harms way, but in situations like I outlined abvoe. The Sea Captor refits will keep the ships credible for many years to come. I think without the need to SLEP you could keep say 4 for a very long time. Every refit isn't just repair but an upgrade to something. New diesels, cheaper to run GTs or whatever. Look after them and 4 decades shoudln't be out of the question. Obviously technology changed in a big way limiting the life in the RN or Counties, Leanders and anything with steam. Assuming technology hadn't changed much, I wonder what could have been made of T12s Leanders and the like - if GTs and low manning had been possible back in the 1960s. The one exception to this I think is the T42. We ran them into the beach and they were too small to do much with so at the end of their lives they were only really fit for scrap.
Meeware		#6	[-]
Posts: 2047 ( 6-Feb-2012 19:14:07) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	There are a couple of factors that mitigate against the RN running ships on quite as long as others seem to do. Firstly there's the manning requirements- manpower for the RN is relatively expensive, compared to some other navies at any rate (I'm not for one minute suggesting that the modern matelot is over paid!). Therefore older ships with their higher manpower requirements rapidly became more expensive to run than a modern, lean manned vessel. The related issue of accommodation standards is worth bearing in mind too. We pay our rates and officers in terms of the standard of accommodation we expect them to endure, and that is rising, quite rightly. Secondly, and to an extent, related, the size of the Navy is relatively small for it's cost (I'm talking about the manpower again here) and this impacts directly on how many ships in all we can afford to run. A small number of ships are going to be worked hard, and that in turn means we don't really want very old ships with high maintenance demands and awkward kit fit outs being the bulk of the fleet. Some (not all but some) of the 'classics' in service around the world are really not giving the sea time that we demand of a pressurised Navy. And lastly, there is the cost of major refits. Bear in mind that a fair few of the 22s and others that have gone to serve long and happy lives over seas have been given very modest fit outs. Compared to the very capable sensor and weapons fits that we put on front line RN units (number of reloads not withstanding!) the frigates serving around the world are often quite modest in their abilities. On occasions when the RN has taken the trouble to really give an older vessel a first class rebuild (pace the Sea Wolf Leanders) the results have been impressive, but cramped, expensive, and remarkably short lived. Bang per buck, a modest deal.
hulahoop7		#7	[-]
Posts: 1744 ( 6-Feb-2012 19:39:01) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	The batch 3 type 22s required hull strengthening - they must have been shagged??
Meeware	Hull strengthening	#8	[-]
Posts: 2049 ( 6-Feb-2012 20:18:59) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	As did the 42s. I don't think it necessarily means they were utterly worked out, but it does show that the pounding a ship in RN service takes is often beyond the design strength of the already very good designs. I was particular surprised when the strengthening began to appear on the 22s as their design has a very deep hull girder giving exceptional strength. It was noticable that the reported cracks and subsequent reinforcement was in the region of the break in the superstructure and the step down to the forepeak. What is perhaps more surprising is that the 23s, with their lower freeboard and less obviously stiff design have actually proved such good sturdy ships. Having said that they are apparently being worked less hard than the design anticipated- it wasn't expected that they'd spend so long away from GIUK gap.
Peter Parkinson	new warships for old	#9	[-]
Posts: 1872 ( 7-Feb-2012 20:28:38) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	We have had years of MOD saying that you cant do this and that and then private companies going ahead and doing it. Who remembers mod saying you cannot put a gun on T22 B2s and then it was done in Pompey dockyard by a private contractor. There are loads of incidents in the last thirty years where this has happened. It has to be said that excuses to get rid of warships are due to UKs failed economy of the free market moneytrism has led to all the cost cutting. The gov was even cost cutting at the height of the oil and gas boom. It is now interesting to see that the thin hull designs starting with the T12 up to the T22s B2 have stood the test of time. Part way through the B2s the hull was thickened for visual effect. All these thin hulls cracked and had to be modified but no ships were ever lost to hull structural failure. The Leander modernizations were an expensive disaster in that there was too much done in each of the three designs where a more limited design should have been attempted. A change to a MK8 gun, A Lynx helo that had dipping sonar, Semi conducter changes to the displays on board, a lightweight seawolf system, STWS a/s torpedos instead of the mortar and say plessey MS 32 sonar which was a much cheaper commercial version of 2016. Later you could have added 1022 for 965 radar and Harpoon. You note no expensive new action info systems and digital computers. With the T21s and the B1 T22s you had a major problem in that the opsroom had rotating coil displays based on Decca commercial gear with the Ferranti FM 1600 series of digital computers that were incompatible with each other. If you have a load of markers you need fixed coil displays. I note that CAAIS did not last long. Contrary to most on this board I think the T21 was an excellent design apart from its ops room problems and why it did not have lightweight seawolf from the start when the South African navy ordered it for their navy at the same time as the T21 was designed remains a mystery. Iwill continue with this thread at a later date
Admiral Beez		#10	[-]
Posts: 6556 ( 8-Feb-2012 04:34:38) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Remove this ad Meeware wrote: Firstly there's the manning requirements- Secondly, and to an extent, related, the size of the Navy is relatively small for it's cost (I'm talking about the manpower again here) and this impacts directly on how many ships in all we can afford to run. And lastly, there is the cost of major refits. Don't forget the need to keep the yards open, staffed and up to date. Otherwise you'll be doing what happens in Canada, a decade of rushed business, then you close the yard and lose the experienced personnel and then spend a mint re-opening the yard three decades later. Better to keep a steady stream of warships being built, meaning the older ones get scrapped or sold.
boblaurabyu		#11	[-]
Posts: 793 ( 8-Feb-2012 06:13:10) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	I always admired Chile's ability to keep old ships working, they even had the Brooklyn running up close to the turn of the century. There must be a local industrial base built to support older ships that get sold to smaller navies is my guess.
ChrisPat		#12	[-]
Posts: 2565 ( 8-Feb-2012 15:02:23) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	In effect then, we do. As we (should) only sell to people who want much the same sort of world we do then lots of old RN ships are serving our purposes around the world, we just aren't paying for their running. You might say we subsidised their procurement but maybe it's a gain overall. The Argentine T42s are an obvious exception but they weren't secondhand.
john daniels		#13	[-]
Posts: 531 ( 8-Feb-2012 15:34:55) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Peter - I could not agree more. The T21 was great for what it was, a decently armed frigate which in my mind took over the mantle of the T81s as a colonial flag waver with a decent set of teeth. They performed well in the Falklands. The two we lost were lost doing what a frigate is supposed to do, go into harms way. As for Leander modernisations - I have long thought that they way we modernised them was short sighted and expensive. Ikara aside (I understand the thinking at the time of all-weather ASW though it was a bukly waste of a few good hulls) The Exocet conversions were just badly thought out. Chilie showed you could have a gun and SSMs. Upgrading the BIIs with a Mk8, Exocet STWS, a 992 and either GWS24 Sea cat (More likely) or LW Sea Wolf would have given the fleet a decent set of wel armed escorts which could have run well into the 1990s. The BIII Seawolf conversions never really made sense to me and the non-conversion of the remaining BIII ships was again a waste of potentially capable hulls. It isn't as if there were enough people doing things with Leanders at the time for inspiration. I understand one of the Ex Dutch Leanders is still going with diesels instead of the Y100 series steam plant. We really could get our money's worth out of our remaining T23s in my view. New ships are needed to keep production lines current, but a lightly used and heavily updated T23 would last around 40 years surely. Last Edited By: john daniels 8-Feb-2012 19:41:24. Edited 1 times.
istobie		#14	[-]
Posts: 1232 ( 8-Feb-2012 17:21:11) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	If we had spare sailors I'd say yes - but as we have a limited pool of staff, you can either put them on a brand new ship or park them on an older, updated one. Besides, a lot of the gear going into the Type 26 will be pulled through from the 23's - sonar, radar, missiles...
Gunnersmate04	Crucero O'Kiggins	#15	[-]
Posts: 2622 ( 8-Feb-2012 17:25:26) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Commenting on the condition of Chiles Brooklyn; I was on board the O'Higgins in the late 80's, it looked like it had been launched the year before. Obviously it didn't see much see service, or hard sea service, but its condition was amazing. We pulled into Tachuano (sp?) and there she was, my Chief and I ran over to her as soon as the brow was over.
SUT Chileno		#16	[-]
Posts: 61 ( 8-Feb-2012 19:41:32) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Graeme, from a chilean perspective, the Counties were excellent ships, even the guided missile variants retained in service. The ADAWS 1 was replaced by a local CMS system called Imagen ( developed by a joint venture between the the Ferranti and the local ASMAR), SeaCat was replaced by Barak, new Israeli and local EW was fitted and multiple improvements and automation fitted to the platform to reduce the manning requierements. The Chilean Navy found that their large huls, multiple pairs of stabilizers and the large flight deck that was installed, including the Indal ASSIST RAST system alloed them to operate helicopters in sea conditions previously considered improbable. They were finally killed mostly by the manning costs. At still some 350 men each of the DLH variantes, they were simply imposible to run once the chilean economy began to compete strongly for well skilled technicians and especially marine engineers. As for the Leanders, the Navy was also extremely pleased, and loved the ships. The two original versiones were extensivvely and continoulsy tinkered. They were expected to operate under chilean colors at least until 2015, and they were sold to Ecuador just because the Type 23s were available. Equipped with full electic MkVI turrets, local Maiten fire control, Israeli EW, local decoys to match local threats, Phallanx, MM40-II, an enlarged hangar and flight deck also with ASSIST and also multiple automation to platform and engineering systems plus the SP21K local command system, if they had continued in service they should hace received Barak SAM. Their manning requirements werent as pressing as those of the Counties, and were cheaper to operate. The ecuadorians jumped at them as they are far better equipped than their notial foe, Peru, and its Lupos Wonderful ships all of them, and once the local support infrastructure is already geared to clone or reproduce spares for logistically suspended items, not so difficult to support. As for O`Higgins, she was the former USS Brooklyn, sold to Chile in 1951. She had just been refitted and bulged previous to the deal. It was a parte of a strategic deal by the US wich handed over two Brooklyns to each of the Argentinean, Brazilian and Chilean Navies ( the so called ABC powers of south america). The cruisers were always well kept, and after a very serious grounding on a needle rock on the southern channels around 1975. She had gotten a 70+m gash on her hull and embarked some 3000 tons of water, but being at Condition Z with all water tight hatches closed and at action stations, as she was in the middle of tactical exercices at the time, she could be saved, towed back to Talcahuano and rebuilt. The hardest part of the refit was that Chile was embargoed at the time because of the Pinochet regime, so there was no external support and everything had to be made locally, The mining support industry was critical in terms of heavy steel manufacturing capabilities, and the local universities, especially the PUC and Santa Maria were vital as providers of advanced modelling and technical support. Event two turret rings had to be made anew. She was back in line, worked up, in Valparaiso on the 3 of January of 1979. slightly over a week after the show off between the chilean and argentinean fleets that almost ended in a full scale war in the Cape Horn on the 22 of december of 1978. After that, she remained in service as the peruvian navy kept their dutch Amirante Grau and there was a need of heavy guns to face her. Once the Olimpo program was well under way and the chilean navy had already gotten and modernised its Counties and Leanders, she could be discarded, but still she remained at Talcahuano on active reserve as a tender for the ratings school at Quiriquina Island and once in a while she was taken for short trip around the Concepcion bay. In 1989 she finally was decomissioned, and a few years later she began her last trip to Alang. An american preservation society couldn`t come up with the funds for the oil to take her to the states. The chilean navy offered to give them the ship for free and even offered a skeleton crew to take her to the States. A sad day, indeed. By the way, just a few days ago the peruvian navy finally announced that Almirante Grau was being sent to the Reserve, wich means the final departure of the very last gun cruiser of the world. Cheers Sut Last Edited By: SUT Chileno 8-Feb-2012 19:54:31. Edited 1 times.
Admiral Beez		#17	[-]
Posts: 6563 ( 9-Feb-2012 06:23:16) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	boblaurabyu wrote: I always admired Chile's ability to keep old ships working, they even had the Brooklyn running up close to the turn of the century. There must be a local industrial base built to support older ships that get sold to smaller navies is my guess. They managed to keep their battleship in operation until 1951. Not a bas run.
Sunk at Narvik		#18	[-]
Posts: 3024 ( 9-Feb-2012 15:10:18) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	SUT, thanks once again for a fascinating and informative post. Ever thought of creating a website dedicated to the South American navies?
SUT Chileno		#19	[-]
Posts: 62 (10-Feb-2012 21:02:27) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Remove this ad They managed to keep their battleship in operation until 1951. Not a bas run. Actually, there were even plans to modernise it until roughly 1953!!, I have seen schematics for the Latorre's upgrade and there were some quite bizarre ideas, such a srefitting of the secndary battery and AA with new Vckers Mk N 4"/62 guns, a plethora of Bofors, etc. It should have been a rebuilt QE o renown 2.0 The logic of it was to face the remaining argentinean operational Moreno,ut when they gave up their modernisation and replaced it with a carrier, the chilean navy was foiled but interservice rivalry wich form a quite bitter episode. SUT, thanks once again for a fascinating and informative post. Thanks to you!! its always fascinating to get a realistic outlook of the naval panorama in Britain and Europe, and thus is a pleasure to be able to provide some details regarding the happenings on South America in general or Chile in particular. Im just evening my debt with all of you... We may not be getting new carriers, SSNs or F35s, but there is a quite lively scenario over here. Ever thought of creating a website dedicated to the South American navies? Actually there are quite a few; one of my favourites is El Snorkel, dedicated to the local submarine panorama, wich some cynics call the Type 209 empire... ;-) achyotros is an interesting blog regarding the chilean navies and the southeast pacific scenario. Saorbats and Zona Militar provide an interesting perspectve from an Argentinean perspective, while Defesabrasil is focused on the very partcular brazilian scenario..the fact that the Sao Paulo ( ex Fch) will appear with a CVBG composed of modernised S2s and A4s will give an image that can be a deja vou from the Gulf of Tonkin in the sixties. Not that I find it to sensible, but, theyre commited and rally mean it!! Cheers, Sut

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

Yuku free message boards

Keeping an old warship in service.

Keeping an old warship in service.