HMS Frigatey Mcfrigateface given her official name The first of the Royal Navy's new Type 26 frigates has been named HMS Glasgow, recycling the name for the fourth time in the last 100 years. "The name Glasgow brings with it a string of battle honours. As one of the world's most capable anti-submarine frigates, the Type 26 will carry the Royal Navy's tradition of victory far …
However, the Swedes do now have a Trainy McTrainface.
"Hunt-class mine countermeasure vessels, named after the packs of well-off Hooray Henrys who spend their free time galloping around Blighty’s fields in search of foxes"
Or just continuing the tradition from the names of the WWI minesweepers, and the 86 WWII destroyers built for convoy escort - of which several were sunk in service.
As collinsl correctly notes, the Hunt class vessels were named after older ships which were themselves named after hunts, for example, HMS Brecon which is named after the previous HMS Brecon which was a Hunt-class destroyer. The Hunt-class destroyers all being named after prominent British fox hunts.
Perhaps she could take some cuttings off that and grow a new one?
What, you mean borrow to invest? Where have you been for the last 30 years?! We don't do that any more. That's... that's... living beyond our means, that is. You'll never balance a household budget if you start telling governments to do that.
None, but it does provide a large number of highly skilled, well paid jobs in a relatively low paid part of the UK whose ability to pay taxes and Council Tax helps to pay for those things, ad well as the MOD's toys, and drives a whole host of other local businesses.
A better question might be what councils are doing with the money they get from developers for not building social housing, as it certainly isn't building social housing.
>None, but it does provide a large number of highly skilled, well paid jobs in a relatively low paid part of the UK
Presumably highly skilled people who could have been producing profitable commercial products for sale and export?
Paying highly skilled, highly paid people to make stuff for the government is economically no different from them being on the dole.
Governments building hospitals, roads, schools and other infrastructure makes sense.
Paying people to build useless stuff to keep skills and facilities around in case you need them in the future makes sense.
Saying that it is justified to pay people to build useless stuff so that they have jobs and money to spend makes no sense, doubly so if they had skills which would be valuable for industry.
Imagine if the NHS announced that the great 20Bn IT cockup was a success because it employed lots of programmers at high wages who spent lots of money on London housing and commuting
...of the imminent threat to UK national security posed by naval vessels from, erm, which country again?
Maybe it's those damned "Commies" in Russia? You know, that country ruled by a hard-line Conservative who probably has more in common with Trump than Stalin, which is basically under siege by American military bases, and has waged war on the UK or any western nation a grand total of ... never.
Or maybe it's China, the world's most capitalistic "Commie" state, which basically supplies the entire planet with most of its goods, and again has waged war on the UK or any western nation a total of zero times.
Maybe it's those genocidal Israelis. Oh wait, aren't we supposed to be their sycophants "allies", or something?
I know, it's them damned Jihadi mooselims in [insert name of this week's threat to oil prices "national security"]. Hmm, does Al-Qaeda/ISIS have it's own navy now?
Got it. It's that nutter Kim Jong-un and his vast army of North Korean zombies ... piloting subs with such a limited range that apparently they can't even make it all the way around their own coastline. Damn.
Are we planning on invading Argentina again, to defend yet more oil reserves one of the last bastions of British colonialism?
Answers on a postcard, addressed to the grieving families of those who died under the UK's brutal "austerity" measures, while we wasted £45.6 billion per annum on "defence" against imaginary bogeymen.
Most intriguing,
"Maybe it's those damned "Commies" in Russia? You know, that country ruled by a hard-line Conservative who probably has more in common with Trump than Stalin, which is basically under siege by American military bases, and has waged war on the UK or any western nation a grand total of ... never."
In the first place, the main diff between Adolf der Aryan and the Georgian Man of Steel was the body count each racked up and the size of their mustaches. Joe's was bigger in both. And I guess that Poland and Finland aren't far enough west for you. Joe and Adolf split Poland up between them; Poland still hasn't got back it's eastern half, though it did get a chunk of Germany in exchange. The Finns lost a chunk of territory, too.
"Or maybe it's China, the world's most capitalistic "Commie" state, which basically supplies the entire planet with most of its goods, and again has waged war on the UK or any western nation a total of zero times."
So I suppose that Tibet, India, and Vietnam (and I mean the Socialist Republic of Vietnam) don't count 'cause they definitely aren't Western? How about the Uighars in what's now the Chinese far west? They don't count, either, eh? As for China's trade policies... look up which country was Germany's #1 trading partner throughout the 1930s. Hint: the name starts with a 'F' and ends with an 'e'.
Sigh.
"Russia? You know, that country [...] has waged war on the UK or any western nation a grand total of ... never."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimean_War
"China, [...] has waged war on the UK or any western nation a total of zero times."
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Opium-Wars
But carry on.
"Numerous wags on Twitter suggested that the ship would be named HMS Frigatey McFrigateface"
Eh... to be honest wags, I think it's time to give that meme a rest. It was funny the first couple of times, but it's been done to death and just reminds you of self-consciously zany "office joker" types these days.
HMS Fanny, HMS Spanker and HMS Cockchafer are surely due for a revival.
How about HMS Cheerful or HMS Candytuft. Serving on a ship with a name like that must surely put a smile on your face, even if it is World War 2 out there.
Or they could make a bit of extra cash by taking a lead from the current minesweeper HMS Quorn, and selling the naming rights, so you could have something like HMS Marmite or HMS Cillit Bang.
"and selling the naming rights, so you could have something like HMS Marmite or HMS Cillit Bang."
The second English civil war happens, the sole naval engagement is where HMS Bovril sank HMS Marmite but was severely damaged in the engagement, leaving a trail of oily brown liquid in its wake, eventually being caught by HMS Cillit Bang...and the ship is gone.
I'm torn, I'd like another HMS PLYMOUTH because of her role in the Falklands campaign, on the other hand the complete apathy that city showed towards saving her as a museum ship in the last couple of years* makes me think F**k 'em.
*She's since been sold for scrap I believe.
@SkippyBing.
Interesting. Perhaps it's just what gets aired on telly etc. As you say, ECHO is a fantastic name for a survey ship. Just seems a shame that ships aren't given names with a bit of menace in them. Mind you, HMS Liverpool, HMS Newcastle, HMS Glasgow could be said to have menace associated with them if the opponent has ever been to the place.
Just remember the "strange" Courageous class ships (which included the Glorious) were nicknamed "Spurious", "Curious" and "Outrageous" beecause of, ehm, their "disruptive design"... (before they were transformed into air carriers).
Old jokers were far better at finding funny names....
And the even less subtle HMS Violent. There's still a patrol boat called HMS Puncher.
Though calling a ship something like HMS Invincible is just tempting fate, I think. I mean, anything can sink.
One of Violent's sister ships was HMS Versatile, that one could go both ways I believe.
That's okay, you lot have the HMS Trumpeter. You can't tell me that that isn't good for a laugh these days. I'm sure its size, relative to others of HM ships, is a fitting metaphor for someone's hands. And penis.
That aside, I'm sure the USS Ponce's crew is proud of their ship, just as the citizens of Ponce, Puerto Rico, for which it is named, are proud of their city and the Spaniard for whom it was named. (Even if he himself was a bit of ponce himself for searching for the Fountain of Youth.)
Roll a couple of dice. If the number was already used, roll them again.
How terribly old fashioned. There's an app for that nowadays y'know.
Makes it quicker to write down the numbers on your paper character sheet and less arguing with the DM when they accuse you of having loaded dice..
It makes a bit more sense when you know they're grouped by type of ship and if a design study gets to the stage of being assigned a Type number it doesn't get reused even if it doesn't get to the build stage.
So Frigates are currently in the 2X series, having started at Type 11 which wasn't built, through the Type 12, also known as the Leander class etc.
We've had the T21 Amazon class, T22 Broadsword class, and T23 Duke class. The T24 and T25 were design studies which weren't built. We now have the T26 City class, well a bit of one so far.
Destroyers, Anti Air Warfare (AAW) platforms in the RN, started at T41 which went out of service decades ago, and were followed by the T42 Sheffield class. The T43 and T44 were design studies into a T42 replacement which ended up being the T45 D class.
The Type 31 seems to be using the 3X series to separate it from the Frigates as it's intended to be more general purpose than they are, Frigates being Anti-Submarine Warfare (ASW) platforms in the RN. I suspect this means they won't have towed array sonar. This is different to the Type 8X platforms which were general purpose in the sense they could do the full AAW and ASW roles, the most notable of which was the sole T82 HMS BRISTOL.
Seems silly to call them frigates, given they're over 6,000 tonnes. Which is quite a bit bigger than her WWI light cruiser predecessor.
The article mentioned that she was involved in the Battle of the Falklands, but missed that she was also at the cock-up that was the Battle of Coronel. For which the Falklands was pay-back, after the Admiralty actually sent out a force capable of dealing with Von Spee's squadron.
The old WWII categorization is no longer valid today. Actual destroyers are as large as WWII "heavy cruisers" - and the difference between "destroyers" and "cruisers" becomes more and more blurred, between, for example, Arleigh-Burke "destroyers" and Ticonderoga "cruisers" the difference is very little, actually the former are more heavily armed, although shorter than the latter, and displacement is very similar.
With most expensive programs cut, larger ships were the first to suffer.
They are huge, bigger than previous generations of destroyers and several times larger than most earlier generations of frigates. Which makes it seem a reasonably sensible decision to drop the 5 "general purpose" Type 26s in favour of less spendy Type 31s. You don't need a high-end vessel to fly the flag or fire a few rounds of 30mm (or more likely, a sternly-worded announcement) at pirates or smugglers.
There are a number of advantages making them bigger and as the value of the steel has declined as a percentage of the total cost it affects the overall programme cost less than it used to. Thanks to hydrodynamics longer ships are faster, or use less fuel to go the same speed which is a win. They'll be more stable in heavy seas than a smaller hull. It's also a lot easier upgrading weapons systems etc. and there's room for growth.
The old T42 was the smallest hull you could get the Sea Dart weapons system on, as such it was a nightmare to do any upgrades on as the compartments were small and cramped, and there was very little margin of stability. So for example when they fitted Phalanx post Falklands they had to remove the ship's boats and associated hoists.
And to quote Kelly Johnson of Lockheed Martin and Stealth fame, size has no bearing on radar cross section. So it's not going to make them more of a target.
Oh, dear. It seems to be a British version of the Oliver Hazard Perry frigates, a.k.a. the Helen Keller class. Very short-ranged AAW systems, pitiful ASurfW systems., not particularly great ASubW systems. They should do well as escorts for the already doomed Queen Liz very large ships without aircraft.
@WolfFan.
Not really sure what you consider good in each of the categories. Granted the AAW systems is short ranged, but there's 48 of them, which is not bad. Also, need to remember, these aren't really for AAW work. In terms of ASirfW, it does talk about LRASM in the Mk41 launcher, so bearing in mind the best any ship tends to get is 8 x Harpoon or similar, not sure what more you want. As for ASubW, it carries two helicopters and ASROC within the Mk 41 as well. As the Mk 41 is 24 cell, that means a total of 24 anti-submarine and anti-ship missiles. Not sure what more you want really? Of course, there might be some Tomahawk within the Mk 41 as well, but I'm assuming they'll be using that for land strike.
In any event, given the size of the ship, it's carry a good amount of ordnance.
Given that the Oliver Hazard Perry class only really carried a single Mk 13 launcher with a magazine capacity of 40, this ship is massively more powerful.
In any event, given the size of the ship, it's carry a good amount of ordnance.
Given that the Oliver Hazard Perry class only really carried a single Mk 13 launcher with a magazine capacity of 40, this ship is massively more powerful.
OHPs displaced 4200 tons. T26s have a design displacement of 6900 tons, which will grow. They'd better be better armed than OHPs.
What they have is:
48 short-ranged (less than 15 nautical mile range) AAW missiles
24 spots for _all_ ASurfW and ASubW missiles, combined
the helo is a 'modernized' version of the Lynx, but that's not the problem, the problem is the Sting Ray torpedoes the helo carries. Small, light, pitiful warhead (45 kg! yes, it's a shaped charge, but 45 kg! The Russkie air-dropped torp has a 70+ kg warhead, though Unc Sugar's Mk 50 and Mk 54 torps are even more anemic than Sting Rays, at least the Mk 54 has better sensors and a longer range. However.... The FY14 DOT&E report assessed the Mk 54 (BUG) torpedo as not operationally effective in its intended role. "During operationally challenging and realistic scenarios, the Mk 54 (BUG) demonstrated below threshold performance and exhibited many of the same failure mechanisms observed during the FY 2004 initial operational testing".) and the sensors and range stink.
A T26 can defend itself against air threats, at least if they're slow (Mach 5-6 Russkie missiles stand an excellent chance of getting past Mach 3 AAW...) and there aren't too many of them. A T26 is useless at fleet area air defence, 15 naut mile range simply isn't good enough. The Mk41 has 24 spots for all systems; ASROC would have either Sting Ray or, more probably, Mk 50 or 54 as its loadout, and Mk 54s are even more useless than Sting Ray. Unless you got a hit aft and popped the seals around the drive shafts on a sub and flooded the engine room, you'd need multiple hits to reliably kill a sub, particularly a big brute like, oh, a Russkie Oscar. (Not that an Oscar would have to get within ASROC range to shower the task force with hypersonic missiles or 650-mm carrier-killer torps...) The LRASM allegedly has a range of over 300 naut miles... but it's slow, subsonic, something like 600 knots. That means that it'd take half an hour to get to the target, during which time the target would move, and when they get to the target they have to traverse the hostile AAW. Russkies tend to have AAW which can reach out and touch inbounds at ranges exceeding 75 naut miles, and which move at Mach 5. Gee. I wonder how long the LRASMs will last... The Russkie hypersonic missiles have ranges on the order of 250 to 275 naut miles, but they're Mach 5 to Mach 6 and get to the target in a much shorter time, so that the target has a problem dodging, and because they're fast the Mach 3 AAW will have a problem engaging. The Russkies admit that they'd have a problem _finding_ a target at 200+ naut miles, and have helos specifically for target identification and tracking, a.k.a. flying suicide machines. The T26 could use a helo for that, as well... but any helo committed to long-range ASurf is a helo you can't use for ASub, and one which won't last long against even Russkie carrier air. Nah, the LRASMs would be used just the way Harpoon would be: at close range. But they're _slow_ and will be shot down in droves by Russkie (or Chinese, or Indian, or whoever) AAW. Tomahawk are even slower than LRASM (475-500 knots...) and would die even faster... and T26s could carry a max of 24 ASROC, LRSM, and Tomahawk, combined.
The things are OHPs for the early 21st Century, they are.
Please note that the USN is sufficiently hard up for ships that they're bringing the OHPs back. Jesus wept.
'A T26 is useless at fleet area air defence, 15 naut mile range simply isn't good enough.:
For the hard of reading I shall repeat that it isn't intended to do fleet area air defence, that's why the RN have called it a frigate. I'll ignore the rest of your top trumps weapons comparisons as the usual ramblings of someone who seems to think western weapons are all rubbish but that Russian ones perform exactly as the advertising brochure claims. Plus you know, actual job...
The hypersonic Russian missiles typically climbed to a high altitude, accelerated to high speed, acquired the target, and dived steeply to make their attacks. The 'cloud of plasma' would block their sensors only in the last few seconds of the attack, not nearly enough to matter.
Much worse are the Mach 3 Russian missiles, of which there are several varieties, surface ship launched, submarine-launched, and land based, and some of 'em have been exported to China, Iran, and India. Those missiles don't have the range of the big hypersonic missiles but don't need it. They are designed to be launched from close in, giving the target 20-30 seconds to detect, identify, target, engage, and destroy them before they hit. Mach 3 at sea level is about a kilometer per second. 20 seconds flight time would be beyond ASROC range. If a sub were to go to periscope depth, pop a half dozen missiles out and dive deep again, a T26 would have an interesting time.
The point about an aircraft carrier battle group is that it has an aircraft carrier. So it operates defence in depth.
This means that individual ships have point air defence capability, and then there are area AAW capable ships to defend the whole task force.
But firing missiles at short range requires being at short range. Well to get to short range of a carrier group requires driving along slowly through a zone where its aircraft can fly along quickly. If you've shot down all its planes, then a carrier group will be running away, terribly fast - as there's no longer any point in it being there. If you haven't shot down all its planes, then you're probably busy running away terribly fast, before they destroy you.
And firing off missiles at 600nm range requires a target. Which requires getting something with a radar on it significantly closer, in order to know where to aim your expensive, often not replaceable at sea, missiles. That platform then has to survive the air component of the carrier group in order to communicate. The ocean is big - and just a target of over-there guv isn't really enough for effective use of weapons.
You also neglect to remember that carrier groups often have "friends" underwater. If any navy regards their own submarine service completely as friends...
@WolfFan.
An interesting read, but unfortunately, somewhat missing the point. Simply reading Wikipedia and posting is not really very good.
The level of the reply can be assessed by its assumption that Mach 3 missiles cannot engage Mach 5 or 6 missiles. The engaging missile doesn't need to chase the incoming one, so outright speed is not important. If you think about it, the Mach 5 or 6 missile is coming at you, so the intercepting missile can be doing 100mph provided it's in the right place!!
Also, whilst hypersonic missiles have an advantage in speed, they have big disadvantages in other areas. Of prime concern is manoevering. If you're flying at those speeds, turning is a big issue, especially turn rate. Whilst the time the target has to engage you is low, your ability to avoid their incoming fire, trying to shoot you down, is pretty close to zero.
This isn't about top trumps and fastest is best etc. For each, there are many parameters with many different pros and cons. Although details are light, do you really think the USA would fund the development of LRASM if it was simply a sitting duck and stood no chance of getting through defences? As has been demonstrated many times in history, having huge technical advantage is not necessarily the best answer. You might like to think that the reason Russia is spending so much money on hypersonic missiles (and they are hugely expensive to develop and maintain) is that they are trying to make up for deficiencies elsewhere? Don't forget at one point, fighter aircraft were getting faster and faster each iteration and then suddenly, it all stopped. Not because it wasn't technically possible to keep going faster at the time, but because speed wasn't everything. Stealth is a good example. A LRASM fully stealthed will be a lot harder to detect and therefore intercept than a hypersonic missile, which basically, can't be stealthed!!
The USN tend to use the Frigate designation to indicate the ship isn't as fast as a destroyer, I think it's something to do with keeping up with a carrier at full speed. In the RN it's to indicate ASW as the primary role, so although it doesn't have an area air defence missile, that's the destroyers job, it has reasonable point defence. It can also carry VLS TLAM which I don't think the OHP could* and has a comprehensive ASW sensor suite, i.e. variable depth towed array sonar, hull sonar, and a Merlin or 2x Wildcat for extra sensors and/or weapons delivery as well as a 3D phased array radar.
Comparing them to an OHP is quite disingenuous.
*I mean the RN would have to buy some but at least the option is there with the Mk 41 VLS.
@SkippyBing.
The OHP only had a single Mk 13 launcher, which couldn't fire Tomahawk. So, the only other option would be quad armoured launchers, which it was nowhere near big enough for. But, this ship could fire Tomahawk from the Mk 41 and not just that, but also LRASM for anti-ship. So, comparing the OHP to the Type 26 seems very wide of the mark.
@Mad Mike.
We were in Norfolk, VA, once and there were a number of OHP that had had the Mk13 removed and replaced with something less impressive looking, i.e. a small platform where it used to be. We could only assume it was the drive you got if you'd really f***ed up!
Then there was the one that lost a rudder going across the Atlantic. Which is an issue when you only have one to start with...
'In British service, frigates are broadly equipped to fight other surface warships and as anti-submarine vessels, a particular British specialism.'
Should be:
In British service, frigates are broadly equipped to deliver large amounts of money to BAE Systems whilst spending most of their lives waiting for vital equipment or under repair.
Battle of the Falklands is not that little known if you are interested in naval history.
It marks the end of squadron raider operations by Germans (and the weaker side in naval warfare in general) to be replaced by lone raiders in both WW1 and WW2.
Germans tried to copy the success of Karl Jessen's Vladivostok Cruiser squadron in Russian-Japanese war, but did not quite get it - you cannot run an operation like this without a base by just raiding fuel and supplies from enemy facilities.
The British also performed significantly better than the Japanese 10 years prior which is not surprising as they had 2 battlecruisers as a part of the squadron sent to deal with the Germans.
Well we did lose 2 cruisers first, at Coronel.
Unfortunately Jackie Fisher's idea of the battlecruiser was that it was to wander round the iimperial sea-lanes, and sweep them of all enemy vessels. Being armed like a battleship but faster than a cruiser.
Sadly people then saw all these huge, expensive and very very shiny ships and said, "I'm having that for my grand fleet".
It probably took a crowbar to prise the ones sent down to the Falklands out of the hands of Beatty. Although to be fair the Navy were pretty busy getting organised at the beginning of the war, and those battlecruisers were dead useful for covering the army being moved to France.
Fisher had only been back in the job for less than a week. I should think the newspaper coverage meant he had little option but to send something - and they were theoretically the fastest. It also gave him an opportunity to get Sturdee out of his way by giving him the command.
And did not Sturdee waste much time in transit with 'exercises'? And was he not coaling when the Germans were sighted on the horizon? And was it not the case that the beached guardship, whose No. 1 gun had been loaded with wooden practice-shot the night before by a crew intending to cheat the morning 'quick-load' competition, duly shot first, and their wooden shell skipped, and happenned to hit the German flagship on the Bridge, whereupon the Germans fortunately took flight? Hey 'EU', Don't tangle with the disorganised British!
Sturdee had been driving a desk for a while, so checking he could still operate a pair of ships makes sense to me.
From my remembering, the Battlecruisers couldn't make full speed to get to the Falklands due to needing to conserve coal. As to coaling, it's like driving on a motorway and you're below a quarter tank - do you stop at next services or go for the one after. Safer to top up at the next one.
(that coaling is such a long process was an impetus for RN to go to oil even though coal was readily available and oil had to come from foreign parts)
And as to what caused Germans to flee, it was as much the sight of the tripod masts which meant they were facing something bigger and badder than them, as a lucky shell from Canopus.
I'd be aiming to base these at Devonport and Portsmouth for that very reason, along with moving the Astute class subs too. Not sure why they're based in Scotland in the first place as the S and T boats were mainly based in Devonport. I expect political pandering to Scotland whilst the SW remains pretty much forgotten and shafted no matter what party is in power.
do the Scots get the warship?
I'm sure they could negotiate to have a share of RN assets in any Scoxit process, but since the SNP don't have a coherent defence policy, it isn't clear what use one or two expensive, state of the art frigates would be. Personally I can't see England and Scotland going back to wars with each other, and there's not a long list of foreign powers eager to invade Scotland. When they give the British and Yank nuclear fleets the boot, they won't need to care if the Ruskies or others are prowling around the Scottish coast, so all they then need is a fair number of fast, all-weather patrol craft to do fisheries, customs and rescue duties.
Assuming they did take this frigate and stick with the name, what would be the point of the PSSRS Glasgow*, other than as a means of providing official sea transport to Wee Jimme Crankie?
* PSSRS: People's Scottish Soviet Republic Ship
On negotiations after Scottish independence, should it happen, Scotland are going to be taking on a lot of national debt, with no credit history, as it were. I can't see this being a huge problem - as they basically share the UK one, but the lower it is, the lower their debt repayments. I guess a deal is going to be that the rUK takes the big shiny defence assets in exchange for more than its share of the debt. Much better to launch Scotland with a debt to GDP ratio of 60% of GDP than about 85%.
Whereas the Sots might aim to be one of those smaller countries that pulls more than it's share of weight doing UN peacekeeping, and so keep their chunk of the army. It seems to me they'd be better off not taking anything but smaller patrol ships from the Navy and only helicopters from the RAF - and if they want combat planes buying something cheaper like F18s, or (le horreur) buy something French.
The U.S. Navy does it too. For example, getting rid of the war-tested navy practice of naming submarines after various sea creatures and replacing it with the current maxim of submarine naming--"Fish don't vote!"
https://everything2.com/title/Naming+traditions+of+United+States+Navy+submarines
The Royal Navy argument was that submarines became capital ships, at the point when they started costing more than almost any ship in the fleet - i.e. when they went nuclear. Particularly the missile boats of course, but even the attack subs were bloody expensive. Wasn't the original Los Angeles something like a billion dollars in the 80s? Which at the time would probably have got you 5-10 frigates.
Hence the RN started using battleship names on the subs. The the latest "A" class seem to have gone for traditional sub names again. There's no points for consistency apparently...
the Natural Environment Research Council's epic public naming contest blunder
The objective of the NERC was to raise public awareness of the Council and I believe the Boaty McBoatface incident did exactly that so how can it have been a blunder. I thought you scribes would have been aware of this.
Then figure out how big a mound of each type of them you're going to carry.
Then figure out what sensors you're going to need give them an effective range.
Then figure out how fast this package has to move under given sea conditions.
Then figure out how long you want it to be able to operate without resupply.
Then figure out what that says about how much fuel and supplies you need to do this.
And then you design the structure that's going to carry all this ammo, food, fuel and crew.
But what do I know?
Nope. You start with the role. In the case of frigates that's anti-submarine, with a side order of anti-ship and general patrol.
Then you pick the weapons you really want. Then you take off a few when it all looks too expensive. Then you get derive ship design.
So ASW means helicopters and a towed array sonar. Plus torpedoes, decent point defence AA and some anti-ship capability.
I think the idea of building some cheaper ships is that the RN do lots of things that don't require the specialities. So they traditionally always have a ship in the Carribbean that does anti-drugs patrols, goodwill visits, and is around to help with support after hurricanes. That doesn't need to be state of the art. There are often ships wandering round Africa, doing similar, when they're not doing anti-pirate duty off Somalia.
It's a balance of having too few assets, against having a bunch of lower quality ones that make you look strong on paper, but are no actual use if there's a real need for them. So for example if we ever had to regularly start patrolling the Persian Gulf again, you ideally should't send ships in there that don't have decent anti-missile defence, as Iran has lots of anti-ship missiles - and might let a few off. But if tensions are below actual war, then a few hulls to fly the flag and keep off Revolutionary Guards speedboats are all that's ever been required in the past. Plus minesweepers.
Old jolly Jack Tar didn't think much of his officers in the Second World War; with huge justification. We had two ships, cruisers, in the Med - where we threw away ship after ship as we fought a futile battle against aircraft which sort of reinforced the correct view our sailors had of the officer class - one was called Penelope and the other was called Antelope.
To show their disdain, our salty types insisted that Penelope was pronounced Penny lope and Antelope as Anti lopey. Just a small piece of pointed diissing of a failed officer corps. (A corps that continues to fail to this day). It is mentioned that Glasgow was hit by a bomb that failed to explode but doesn't go on to mention that pretty much every ship in the Falklands Task Force was similarly struck; and similarly fortunate. Still it's ships that take captains to sea; why on Earth would they need to have weapons as well?
Erm, what are you on about? Oddly enough the officers were well aware of the risk to ships from aircraft in both WWII and the Falklands. But you can't achieve anything if you don't put forces in place. You then do the best you can to deal with the risks.
Keeping Malta going was one of the major reasons that the RN kept pinging ships through the Med, and they succeeded. And by succeeding they were able to bugger up Rommel's supply lines, thus helping to tie down German aircraft in the Med that would otherwise have been in Russia, and also ensuring a victory against Rommel. Which was a precious German Panzer corps that spent its time in the desert, rather than heading towards Moscow.
It should also be pointed out that the RN comprehensively beat the Italian navy, despite being outnumbered for most of the time, and often fighting in areas closer to Italy's airbases. And they did this by being so aggressive that they psychologically dominated their opponents. Of course you may just argue that the Italian officer corps were even worse than the British...
As for the Falklands, again this was fought in an area where Argentina were much closer to their airbases than the RN were. But again the RN psychologically dominated the Argentian navy to such an extent that they only came out to fight once. And basically spent the whole war hiding, after the Belgrano was sunk.
Not a charge that could be levelled against their airforce, who put in a lot of sorties and took a lot of losses.
But, though they made several serious errors, the RN didn't do that disastrously in the Falklands. They kept the Argentian airforce flying low. With a combination of aggressive patrols from the Sea Harriers and the threat of Sea Dart and whatever the army's missile system was called (I've forgotten). That low flying was what caused lots of their bombs not to go off. Admittedly not understanding their own fuses didn't help, but then if you drop your bombs too low and they go off, you blow your own plane up.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
