The Royal Navy Type 22 Frigates, HMS Chatham, HMS Campbeltown, HMS Cumberland and HMS Cornwall, were withdrawn from service as part of the SDSR and the MoD have now announced their disposal intentions.
It is the Disposal Services Authority (DSA) intention to invite expressions of interest in tendering for the Type 22 Frigates (HMS Chatham, HMS Campbeltown, HMS Cumberland and HMS Cornwall) for the following:
- Further Use
- Sinking for an Artificial reef
- Recycling
At this stage the DSA does not require interested parties to specify which Vessel/s they wish to bid for.
It is the DSA intention to award at least one vessel to a UK Ship Recycler; this is in part to secure detailed knowledge of the UK’s capacity to recycle vessels. Any decision to award to a UK Ship Recycling company will be made in accordance with transparent and objective evaluation criteria which will be issued at the Invitation to Tender stage.
A sad day of course but time marches on.
HMS Cumberland
From the MoD
formally a Warship Frigate F85 was built at Yarrow Shipbuilders, Glasgow UK in 1988 and is now lying at HMNB Portsmouth. The vessel ceased service on the 23rd September 2011 and is due to be tendered early 2013.
HMS Cornwall’s Lynx Helicopter Flies Over HMS Cumberland in the Indian Ocean
HMS Chatham
From the MoD
formally a Warship Frigate F87 was built at Swan Hunters Shipbuilders in Wallsend UK in 1989, and is now lying at HMNB Portsmouth. The vessel ceased service on the 20th October 2011 and is due to be tendered early 2013
HMS Chatham In The Mediterranean
HMS Campbeltown
From the MoD
formally a Warship Frigate F86 was built at Cammell Laird ship yard Birkenhead UK in 1987 and is now lying at HMNB Portsmouth. The vessel ceased service on the 7th July 2011 and is due to be tendered early 2013.
Type 22 Frigate HMS Campbeltown
HMS Cornwall
From the MoD
formally a Warship, Frigate F99 was built at Yarrow Shipbuilders, Glasgow UK in 1988 and is now lying at HMNB Portsmouth. The vessel ceased service on the 20th October 2011 and is due to be tendered early 2013
HMS Cornwall
Incidentally, the new pages on gov.uk where the story comes from have links that go nowhere except an error page.
Come on MoD, get it together!
…*formerly* a Warship…
Sheesh!
Very sad. Very sad indeed.
At least they pretty much got their 25 yrs in, unlike Norfolk, Marlborough, Grafton, Largs Bay, probably one of the Albions if CVF needs more dosh, etc
Fine looking ships, bristling with weapons and withdraw from service with plenty of life left in them.
They only really got 20-23 years service a piece, although as Wstr points out at least they weren’t scrapped 5 minutes after commissioning like some of their unlucky contemporaries.
I wonder if this will mean we finally get harpoon transferred across to T45.
Good question Martin!
Just a shame you cannot as easily move the sonars also….
does anyone know what happened to the harpoon launcher’s from the previous T22′s?
http://www.flickr.com/photos/grant359/7002014834/
Looks like the Harpoons and guns have gone to the warehouse. The Seawolf launchers haven’t though. Always strikes me as odd that we underarm our ships especially compared to the French or Italians. Harpoons to T45 is a no-brainer, assuming of course they are not past their sell-by date, which they may be. Also why not strap those Seawolf launchers onto an Albion?
Because GWS25 is essentially unsupportable……
Ow, that’s true. Some systems are bolt on. Others are not.
Good point easy to forget that Sea Wolf in its original form is 30 year old technology! May partly explain why, what on the face of it were very capable ships, being sent to the scrap yard.
What strikes me is that we have been the only first world nation to fight a traditional naval campaign since WWII maybe Korea and neither side fired a single ship mounted ASM despite both sides having quite a few. And T42 and several other vessels did not posses them but were part of a TF that did.
Which is the point.
If T45 needs to fight ships it won’t be alone it will be part of a TF with air cover, helos, other vessels and SSNs. They won’t be operating on their own in an area where there is a surface threat and it looks like its going to kick off.
T45 no more needs Harpoon than a tank needs a SAM system and a 155mm howitzer on the same chassis. Harpoon is an expense that is not necessary on T45 and I don’t get the continuous hankering for it. We have the best AAW vessel in the world but its not good enough because it doesn’t have some old missiles that it doesn’t need and would never fire.
@ Phil – If a Mexican stand off turns into a fight which is the most likely scenario I think for ship to ship combat then a big ASM like harpoon may be just the ticket. I agree it’s a secondary weapon but it does not mean that it’s not highly useful in certain circumstance. if we already have the launchers and missiles then why not transfer them across. How much could it really cost? Also we should not forget that with so few escort vessels we need to get as much as possible out of each of them. Can we afford to have something like T45 only able to operate in a task force.
@ Waddi
You are also forgetting the trackers (they are big bits of kit) need a home on the ship too not just the launchers (which aren’t insubstantial) then it needs to be plumbed in. As NaB said it is very old tech now. But lets say it was a pristine and fully functioning it is a system that can knock a 4.5in shell out of the sky at supersonic speeds so not exactly impotent. VLS version with solid state giros is even better. If SeaCeptor does offer real improvements on the latter then it will be some system.
It would cost a lot since the missiles have limited life at sea and if they were embarked as a matter of routine then that’s money from something more useful.
Mexican stand off? If there was such a thing it will be part of a TF. Probably international and almost certainly with air and SSN cover. That’s the point. These vessels won’t go near a shooting war on their own. They get out out as single ships on ops where there is presently next to no risk of a fleet engagement.
There’s no real need for them. Are you going to put your prized AAW asset within ASM range of another fleet, energise and then fire when you have other vessels more suited to the task of ship killing and indeed other assets? No you won’t.
@Phil: if T45 was really going to only be part of a task group, fine. But a destroyer like this will often be working alone, and to be without any effective defense against even a fast patrol boat (which Harpoon has done very well against off Libya and the Gulf) is rather foolish. No, the 4.5 won’t cut it..
Oh phil look what you’ve done!,
Wf fast patrol boats lynx sea skua seemed quite useful.
I agree you shouldn’t break the bank in getting ASM onto T45 as it’s a secondary capability, but if we already have Harpoon systems and they still work then id like to see them put to good use.
I don’t like the idea of any escort ship, especially one that could well spend a lot of time working alone, having no credible surface defence.
@ Phil – if you look at the numerous mexican stand off’s in Asia at the moment or some that we have been involved in in the FI they do not involve task forces. Sending a task force may well inflame the situation. However not having a substantial medium range anti surface capability leaves an asset like T45 vulnerable to a vessel who does have such a capability if thing’s turn hot fast. The vessels don’t have to be armed all the time either. if it has the launcher onboard then you have no way of knowing if the missile is in the tube or not however the detterant is there.
@Mark: Sea Skua is useful. But it has a very limited range, the warheads are small, they can only be launched if there is a helicopter available (we’re only carrying 1 these days) and the missiles are so old they are practically out of service
I’m not clear what you guys think a few Harpoons are going to do against a swarm of Iranian attack boats…
The T45 advantage in combat is its bloody great range and ability to dominate the skies within that range. It shouldn’t be getting into one-one one ship fights.
The hypothetical naval engagement argument irks me; we equip our ships against their likley threats and for their indended roles, not like the Americans who can afford to throw every last bit of kit possible onto a platform.
If the marine threat changes to the degree where surface vessles are a threat; thats exactly why the T45 has a spot left for Harpoons on its deck. But that isn’t likely to happen more quickly then we can buy some and bolt them on.
@phil. Ref no ‘ship mounted ASM’ [SSM?] engagements – correct as stated, although you can think of the strike against HMS Glamorgan as virtually ship-to-ship (with East Falkland as the enemy ‘vessel’ – ARA Este Malvinas if you will) or at least surface-to-surface as they were MM38s (ship-launch configured model of the Exocet), that had been flown in and repositioned onto trailers.
Nobody is going to be sending a multi billion pound AAW destroyer in some sort of Mexican stand off thousands of miles from home. It’s bollocks. Whatever the Asian navies are getting up to its not how we work. Enemy capital ships do not loom out of the mist and pump our ships with ASM with no warning. Doesn’t happen. It’s fantasy. If the threat assessment says likely enemy surface action with first rates then there will be a TF there. We even use TFs to fight men skiffs. And nobody can even use the ubiquitous Falklands example either. Or even GRANBY where all the Iraqi vessels or the vast majority were done in by helicopters and planes
@ Phil
“Nobody is going to be sending a multi billion pound AAW destroyer in some sort of”
HMS York in the Falklands 2010
You don’t seem to see what I am saying the enemy ship does not have to come out of no where they may be sitting of a drilling platfom or something else for days before things suddenly get hot.
@ Steve D – not thinking about Iranian gun boats rather an Argentine frigate.
Will harpoons (or any other missiles – TLAMs?) not fit in T45′s vertical launch tubes?
@Mycoman
Harpoon is designed to fit in it’s own bolt on cannisters, it won’t go in the vertical launch silo’s. Tomahawk would require a larger silo than currently fitted, plus the T45 only has 48 (they should really have 64 or 72) which should be prioritised for Sea Viper.
I’m all for fitting Harpoon to T45, although I’ll accept that it’s not a priority. IF we still have some spare and operational surely bolting existing ones on would need minimal funds? Plus they are still in service on T23 so it’s not as if it’s a limited/dying system which won’t have the support infrastructure and spares etc.
P.S
Long-term I think both T45 and T26 should get the NSM, Perseus would be great but you could be waiting around for a very long time, that’s if it actually gets built at all.
Frankly if you are worried about anti-ship weapons I on the Type 45 I would think the LRASM-A would make more sense. It should (famous last words) enter service around 2015 as it is based on JASSM-ER which is already flying. The range brings it more in line with the range at which you would want a type 45 to operate. It should comfortably out range most of the high speed weapons out there and is low-observable. It will be a far more capable weapon than the NSM for destroyer sized ships.
That would be a more expensive add-on to be sure but I agree with the others that I don’t see either NSM or Harpoon as being worth it. I don’t want to operate within Harpoon or NSM range with a type 45. Personally I doubt anything gets done but if I am going to bother to do something in that regards with the Type 45 I think it would involve spending the money and putting in more VLS cells so I could carry LRASM-A and (by default really) TLAM. Anything short of that is a waste of money in my view.
@ Jeremy H – I like the idea of LRASM-A as it fits inside the Mk 41 VLS. if we install the Mk41 silos in the middle of the T45 then this would also give us the ability to fire TLAM. Eventually as something like Perseus comes along we can change over the A50 silo’s to A70′s. This would mean that we could easily mix and match the missile load allowing us to choose from the best US or European missiles with no need to go through costly conversion’s. As missiles become smarter and more plug and play this should become easier. It would also allow us to benefit from using our current TLAM supply chain with no need to resort to SCALP (n) which is expensive in comparison.
@Martin
Yeah, it would have a high up front cost but would give you the widest variety of weapons fit for the things which in RN service are the highest of high end ships. Really it is more about TLAM (or its follow on) than LRASM-A (Or any ASM for that matter) in my view. The ships are far more likely to fire those than the ASM’s but being able to throw 4 or 6 in the silos would give you a standoff reach of 900ish KM’s with a weapon that will likely be networked pretty tightly with F-35′s the RN will be operating or do just fine on its own.
Supposedly one could put Perseus (if it ever gets developed, I am not convinced it will at this point because it is going to be very expensive) in Mk 41 cells so that would eliminate the need for refitting A70s and save a good amount of money there.
It would be nice if Perseus would fit in a mk41 launcher. I would still like to see at least some of the A50 silos switched to A70 though eventually. Anything like a future Aster 45 ABM will need the longer cell. I have seen guesstimates of £500,000 per silo which does not seem too much. With the eventual replacement of Aster 15 with quad packed sea ceptor we should have more than enough space onboard for an impressive range of capabilities.
@Martin
I can’t think of a situation where against worsening tensions with Argentina we wouldn’t have the threat of a sub lurking in the area to disuade them from such attacks. In any case, what would Argentina gain by starting a shooting war?
@Challenger
The issue with simply taking a weapon system and bolting it onto a ship is intergrating it with that vessles search radar and control systems, and then fully testing that setup prior to deployment. Its unlikely to be overly complex, but it would still cost a reasonable sum and require a month or two in dock, followed by sea-trials for comissioning.
The escorts that went south in 82 were worked up for surface warfare.
The fundamental role of a navy is to sink the ships of the enemy. Probably the best “place” for an “escort’s” ASM missiles is on it’s helicopter. But considering the small cost, as a percentage of the whole system cost, of missiles (screwed to the deck) and medium gun not to fit them is an economy too far. Even if viewed as a defensive measure they are worth it; as an instrument of denial. A shrinking fleet and redundancy has to be considered too; as does the possibility we may not always be acting with the Americans. Or perhaps the Indians, Russians, and Chinese are just dumb?
York was not operating on her own. Why are the blinkers put on when it comes to allies?!
” In any case, what would Argentina gain by starting a shooting war?” – Sorry, I just had a flashback to 1982
@Phil – If we were talking about a new system with all the expense and “faff” that that entails, then I would agree with you; but we are talking about transferring an existing system onto a platform which is already “fitted for” it, so why not?
@WiseApe
Frankly were I the RN I would scrap them so that having Harpoon does not keep me from getting something more capable I could actually use and need later. Harpoon just does not have a lot of utility on a Type 45 in my view. If you are that close things have gone horribly wrong already.
“@phil. Ref no ‘ship mounted ASM’ [SSM?] engagements – correct as stated, although you can think of the strike against HMS Glamorgan as virtually ship-to-ship (with East Falkland as the enemy ‘vessel’ – ARA Este Malvinas if you will) or at least surface-to-surface as they were MM38s (ship-launch configured model of the Exocet), that had been flown in and repositioned onto trailers.”
Now I don’t get into definitional debates but I have to say you’re pushing it calling a ground launched Harpoon “virtually” ship launched! It was also virtually space launched! And unless we plan to ground a T45 and fire off the Harpoons then…
“If we were talking about a new system with all the expense and “faff” that that entails, then I would agree with you; but we are talking about transferring an existing system onto a platform which is already “fitted for” it, so why not?”
Because, and I am sure a naval type will back me up on this, when missiles go to sea they have a shelf life. Now I am not sure if they either have to be decommissioned or re-manufactured or somesuch, but that is an expense. It is an expense that a cash strapped armed forces does not need. I’d bet the farm that most of the time a T23s Harpoon tubes are empty or half empty because carrying them means extra expense on the missiles.
So in an Armed Forces that has to make every penny count it makes no sense to spend money on a capability that will never be needed and has not been used despite fighting two (Im going to count the Gulf now too) naval campaigns. Which brings me to the point about fast attack craft, I am sure Chris B would love to delve back into his Airpower Survey to tell us exactly how many Iraqi vessels were sunk by airpower? I can pre-empt – I believe it was almost all of them. Despite a HUGE, HUGE American naval presence with well over hundred ASM Harpoon launchers.
@Phil
The fact of the matter is that Harpoon is just flat not going to be used that much by the US anymore, particularly in congested and well traveled waters. You don’t have enough control over the thing once you fling it off your ship to use it with confidence. For dealing with things like missile boats for the most part aircraft can approach within easy range for much safer weapons to be used. They don’t have a lot of anti-air weapons after all.
Harpoon is a great weapon if the only thing out there is a hostile ship…or the situation is such that hitting something else is not that big of a deal. Generally I don’t see such weapons being cut loose in anything short of WWIII and why newer western anti-ship weapons are likely to be heavily data-linked to allow a man in the loop to make decisions further along in the targeting chain.
I completely agree Jeremy!
AShMs look very compelling on paper but vessels should simply not be putting themselves into position to fight other surface vessels – which they won’t be if they are operating as part of a combined TF which they will be. And then you have the ROE problems you mention which I think are overlooked by many but are actually very real limitations.
@Phil – Yes good point re shelf life of missiles, though I do like Martin’s point about the deterrent value of at least fitting the tubes; test fire a missile now and again to keep people guessing.
Re ships on dry land. Well, the Chinese think it’s worthwhile
http://www.bobhenneman.info/china.htm
There’s FACs and then there’s shitty boats people call FACs to frighten people. And besides, as I believe Mark pointed out, Iraqi FACs got their arses handed to them by simple Lynx and air strikes. FACs are very vulnerable and if we are likely to be up against proper FACs then it will be as part of a TF. If they are shitty little things like speed boats armed with RPGs and bombs then T45 has something like 13 or so guns. Shooting wars at sea where two or more naval vessels clash do not suddenly spring up. It is far more likely that an air strike occurs ala USS Stark and even then whilst the strike itself was a surprise given the context that it happened at all was not so surprising.
@Phil: on what do you base your comment “if we are likely to be up against proper FACs then it will be as part of a TF”? I don’t see a single T45 patrolling the FI or a similar location having a choice of enemies. If there’s multiple major surface combatants heading it’s way it would obviously be well advised to run like hell, but there’s a lot of straits we keep eyes on where an multiple FAC’s with could unmask rapidly. A 4.5 won’t reach very far, and even Sea Viper will rapidly run out of missiles if the offenders sit out of Mk8 range.
On what basis? On the basis that Her Majesties Navy does not send single combatants into a war zone on their own and unsupported.
The model of a lightning flash war is a bankrupt one.
We do not have ships happily puffing around contentious waters suddenly assailed by swarms of enemy warships. The rapidly unmasking enemy made up of FACs is crap since proper FACs are owned entirely by nation states and we are not in the habit of having exposed individual vessels bobbing around Iranian waters, certainly not since the good show the Navy put on a few years ago. A vessel that I believe was armed with Harpoon?
You’re shoe horning unlikely scenario’s to fit your idea of what kit should be hung on a warship.
If T45 needs to deal with some speed boats, it has 13 guns. If it was in an area where tensions were high and a visit from a few Iranian FACS was expected then it would be operating as part of a TF. It would not be stuck out like a bulldogs bollocks on its own, unsupported and forsaken!
As for the Falklands, seriously, the Argentine Navy is worth more as scrap now.
@wf
Even then Harpoon is hardly the answer. I don’t think Aster has capability against surface targets. It is not that type of weapon for a few reasons. Or were you talking about having too many incoming weapons to deal with?
Regardless Harpoon is just not a great solution in those tactical situations. What you really need are helicopters appropriately armed with something like a Hellfire or something along the lines of an SM-2 that you can command guide into the target very quickly.
Harpoon seems to have missed more than it has hit. Seems to do more damage when it is fired accidentally!
It is interesting that US forces sank more Iranian vessels in the 80s using laser guided bombs, Standard SAMs and cluster bombs than they did using AShM or even air launched missiles.
We decided we didn’t really need that many ship’s helicopters. Or a missile. Because something else would do it. We didn’t need something else, so we didn’t need it, because airpower on the carrier would do it, but then we decided we didn’t need so many expensive jets because the RAF would do it. Now we’re deciding we don’t need so much RAF…
Just reminding everybody that the Block II version of Harpoon has an embedded GPS which gives it a (limited) land attack capability. A 500lb blast frag warhead isn’t going to take out a hardened target but it would make a mess of anything else in range. Fitting your T45′s with the launch ramps and the control consoles gives you options and that is what warships are about. I have no idea if the RN has Block II but it is just an upgrade kit. Fitting harpoon from existing stocks would be a better option than wishing for Tomahawk.
@Alex
Hey, I 100% agree with you regarding the overall attitude of the EU in general and the UK to a much lesser degree regarding defense. It is a bit lax for my liking.
I just think that the Harpoon is not really the right match for this particular ship that came up (the Type 45) and would not be right for the Type 26 either for that matter.
Harpoon is nearing the end of its service life and represents and out of date method of warfare. It was basically designed for an environment where there were virtual free fire zones if the Cold War went hot. It was not designed for confused situations with neutrals about. It certainly was not designed to engage fast attack craft (though it can it is massive overkill).
LRASM-A would be a bit different. It has a lot more range than Harpoon and should have a much smarter seeker and be network enabled so that a man can be in the loop. It is a weapon of the future. Plus I would guess that one could get some comparatively cheap land attack versions (JASSM is only about $700,000 a pop and the whole thing may just be dual purposed anyway because if it already has GPS on it for mid-course than why not) and get a reasonably 900KMish land attack weapon to supplement TLAM. Harpoon, even in the II variant just does not have the range I would want for a land attack weapon. The biggest drawback though is that its biggest supporter is about to move onto the next thing.