What is the purpose of the UKs Type 23 frigates?

ASW frigates, they carry one of them fancy brit towed sonars, also
>32 aa missiles
>pitful
No matter how many missiles you have, if you need more than 32 missiles better start praying because you will be fighting in the biggest naval battle in modern times or ww3

>2 × twin 12.75 in (324 mm) Sting Ray torpedo tubes
For a class of anti-submarine frigates they don't have much going in the anti-submarine establishment, especially compared to something like Krivak-class, pic related.

Attached: ChTA-53-1135.jpg (787x1010, 660K)

entire iranian navy spanked by a single Brit destroyer

Attached: 1550117237141.jpg (441x302, 12K)

>destroyer
Frigate my dude, a fucking FRIGATE

IIRC Russian helicopters deployed with Krivak class frigates (Ka-25 and Ka-27) only carry a single Torpedo, where the UK's Sea King (The ASW helo in the 80s and 90s) carried 3, Lynx (smaller heli used in support) carried 2 and the current Merlin can carry up to 4

Is the British ship building industry dead?

didn't they put out the QE? I mean what necessitates a constant churning/buildup at this hour

>he hunts subs with his ship instead of the helos

As an user already said, it’s a light class of ASW frigate. The RN has been preoccupied with ASW since the Cold War, A’s they would need to help protect convoys of American reinforcements and supplies from Soviet subs in the Atlantic. That and the end of empire reduced their other commitments. Type 23 is an advance on the cheap classes of light ASW frigates used pre-Falklands by having a limited capacity for self defence (32 VLS which is similar to other frigates in the 4000 ton range).

It was one of the first implementations of a CODLAG combined diesel-electric gas engine, which basically means the engine can run very quietly, becoming far more difficult to detect on a submarines sonar and was considered a real game changer in the 1990’s.

As I said it’s a light class of ship, so it does not carry a particularly substantial armament and only one rather than two helicopters. It was designed to be an economical procurement, especially as the RN, along with other navies cut back their budgets after the Cold War. It’s priciply an anti-Submarine asset as well as patrol/general purpose vessel and is not intended to be the core of a carrier escort group. Type 26 is going to be larger and much more “high-end” in terms of capabilities but costs so much that the MoD are cutting back orders from 13 to 8, much as happened with the type 42 being replaced by Type 45 as the primary AAW asset.

Purpose is to be cheap.

Nowadays any classification of warships other than surface - submarine - carrier is meaningless. My favorite example of this is the Franco-Italian Horizon Class.

>Classified as a frigate by France
>Classified as a destroyer by NATO
>Would be at least a Light Cruiser, if not a small Heavy Cruiser, by the standards of the London and Washington naval treaties

So what is it? A frigate, a destroyer, a light cruiser or a heavy cruiser? The answer is that it doesn't matter: it's an anti-air surface ship.

Going back to my above point, the purpose of all non-carrier surface ships is to protect carriers against submarines, air/missile strikes or both. Some have varying degrees of offensive capability as well, and quite a few destroyers also have one helicopter on the back deck for scouting and/or transporting commandos.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Dawn_of_Gulf_of_Aden

Example of a lone destroyer in action, the South Koreans used the helicopter to transport a team of 30 commandos to rescue 21 hostages from some pirates.

Attached: D621-Chevalier-Paul-04[1].jpg (2265x1002, 542K)

I just thought of a more relevant example. The Type 23 "frigate" that OP is talking about... is only 200 tonnes lighter than the American Ticonderoga class cruisers. So frigate, destroyer, light cruiser or heavy cruiser? Your call.

Attached: Ticonderoga_class_cruiser_1000_0001[1].jpg (1000x870, 317K)

Yeah, with the increasingly multi-role nature of warships, distinctions between missile-carrying surface combatants have largely become blurred.

Oh, I'm not done by with my autism yet: the Ticonderoga class cruisers have roughly the same tonnage as pre-Dreadnought battleships. So technically the age of battleships isn't over, just the age of Dreadnoughts.

Funny isn't it? This is the Baden-Württemberg class frigate of the Bundesmarine. Displaces at +7200 tons but is still classed as a frigate by the German Navy.

Attached: 800px-BADEN-WURTTEMBERG_00257_(cropped).jpg (799x533, 84K)

>Just finished building two 65,000 carriers
>Building new 8,000 ton frigates
>Building 5x 2,000 ton OPVs
>Still building 7x 7,800 ton SSNs
>Starting to build 4x 17,000 ton SSBNs
>Program going to construct another 5x 4,000 ton frigates

Oh yeah it's totally dying, user.

Yeah, Britain probably has the largest military shipbuilding industry outside of the US and China.

Anti-submarine warfare. They've got a big ASW suite. Hull and towed sonar, big ASW helo on board with a hangar large enough to take it, torpedoes, hull is acoustically quietened and they are pretty damn fast.

The 32x SAMs and 8x Harpoons are their general purpose kit. Their prime duty is and always has been ASW.

This

I think destroyer is short for torpedo destroyer, clarifying their ASW purpose. In French and German they're called anti-torpedo[ship] and torpedohunter respectively (contre-torpilleur and torpedojager).

Though nowadays some destroyers forgo ASW to focus more heavily on anti-air.

>destroyer is short for torpedo destroyer
They were initially designed to counter fast torpedo boats that used their maneuverability and speed to hit larger warships.

>4.5 inch gun and 30mm are machine guns

In the Royal Navy, Destroyers are optimized for Air Defense, Frigates for ASW.

Doubt the soviet ship has any decent sonar array. The type 23 definitely does.

>trying to classify ships by displacement
>not by role
Wew.

It's not a destroyer, that's a type 45.

Well, what’s the difference in role between a Burke and a Tico?

What is it with mutts and their constant need to shit over everything without doing a single piece of research? Are you all really that fucking insecure?

>implying it's Americans shitting on British ships and not buttblasted "Persians"

No idea. US standards aren't applied globally, so don't look at other nation's navies through that lense. Is the US still classifying ships by displacement? Retarded if so.

They are the best ASW ships afloat

Uh, no, it carries two internally and they're larger caliber. It can also optionally carry anti-submarine rockets or up to eight 250 kg anti-submarine bombs. They're lighter helicopters on a lighter and older ship class, though they can carry up to four 450 kg fuel tanks on the external mounts and I believe nothing suggests that is Soviets felt carrying 2 torpedoes internally was not enough they wouldn't put them on these external mounts. Pic related.
It was also tested to launch Kh-35 anti-ship missile, but with the dissolution of the USSR the missile development was temporarily put on hold and by now Russia has Ka-52K.

Attached: s4_C29UUEjK5xZ458rvHtm_QdclKqs7mDK_5RnNrTdaI6bK4F9zNsQdv4p4cbia1d1CZmBbPTgOJ_9Yik-icLJMxwOR6N-JQG_kC (450x376, 20K)

>Our sonar arrays good, their sonar arrays bad
Cool story, nice Hottentot Morality.

I don’t think it’s particularly controversial to say that the Brits have better sonars than the Russians.

The uk literally sailed a submarine up to the most advanced Russian towed array of the 80's, cut it off, and took it home to look at.

The Russians had no idea it was stolen and just thought it got snagged on a rock and broke.

Source

Yeah, like I said, nice Hottentot Morality.
Cool story, too bad in real life they stole some random sonar from some random Polish boat, lol.

first article I found on it, google has several other hits:

popularmechanics.com/military/navy-ships/a28794/1982-uk-sub-stole-soviet-sonar-device/

nice Hottentot Morality.

Attached: I do not think it means what you think it means.jpg (500x277, 15K)

This wasn't me, but he was right ivan.

>according to The Telegraph
>Top secret top notch Soviet sonar array stolen from a random Polish vessel
Small island's attempts to make themselves seem relevant are really hilarious.
It means precisely what you are doing here.
>Me gud, u bad! BAD!
Cool story, lol.

Attached: 1268693856539.png (493x402, 9K)

>Cool story, too bad in real life they stole some random sonar from some random Polish boat, lol.

A soviet ship, testing the most advanced towed array they had.

Source? You mean the things they're literally building right now?

forces.net/news/hms-prince-wales-may-be-ready-sea-trails-12-months

ukdefencejournal.org.uk/hull-of-first-type-26-frigate-hms-glasgow-taking-shape/

navaltoday.com/2019/03/14/second-river-class-opv-medway-handed-over-to-royal-navy/

youtube.com/watch?v=HoYrGNGmkYo

ukdefencejournal.org.uk/guide-dreadnought-class-nuclear-submarine/

ukdefencejournal.org.uk/type-31e-frigate-competition-shortlist-announced/

Three words:

Anti
Submarine
Warfare

>Small island's attempts to make themselves seem relevant are really hilarious.

I would encourage you to read blind mans bluff and hunter killers

>according to The Telegraph
>Top secret top notch Soviet sonar array stolen from a random Polish vessel
Shivering tale, lad.

Attached: 1268693722271.png (494x400, 25K)

Apart from that Operation Barmaid is notably documented in published books as well. Enjoy knowing Vatnik sonar is shit tier.

amazon.co.uk/Secrets-Conqueror-Untold-Britains-Submarine/dp/0571290329

Put the vodka down Ivan, you're county's technology has and always will be shit.

No, the shivering is from your withdawal, quick, get more krokodil.

>So technically the age of battleships isn't over, just the age of Dreadnoughts.

Tell that to the Soviets.

>I would encourage you to read cold war NATO propaganda
No, thanks.
Yeah, I know where this bullshit comes from. A book written by a British (what a surprise) writer in accordance with serkit dokumints that he personally found. What a freezing recital, my m8!

Attached: spetsnaz laughing.jpg (446x400, 112K)

>small island
Oh look it's Armatard. Have you got a job yet or are you still frothing at the mouth every time Britain is mentioned for fun? Babushka can't support you forever and there can't be too many places that will pay you for frothing at the mouth on command every time Britain is mentioned.

>seething cope.

>All according to sekrit dokumints, ain't you believe me m8? I swear on me mum!

Attached: 1375727222001.jpg (200x173, 10K)

>sekrit dokumints

First hand accounts of sailors who were there.

>Sekrit stories told by sailors who totally were there
Surely chilling epic.

Attached: 1424801906001.jpg (345x383, 47K)

>build a carrier
>can't afford any aircraft for it
>loan it to America so their crayon eaters can use it for training

Britannia rules the waves!

The problem isn't buying American jets. NATO is effectively a relationship between America and its clients so why bother spending time, effort and money on the R&D and production costs for a next generation fighter when you can just buy them from your ally?

The problem is the FUCKING RAMP combined with the absence of a CATOBAR system, forcing them to operate the QE with F-35B's rather than F-35C's. The F-35B has horizontal take-off capabilities (with helps when using A FUCKING RAMP to take off), but that's very fuel intensive and as a result leads to a shorter operational range. The second problem is that the F-35B is also less versatile in what payloads it can use. All of this means is that strictly speaking the QE is probably worse than the Charles de Gaulle that's almost two decades its senior. The only benefit is that it's "cheaper" due to being fuel based (rather than nuclear) and having a greater degree of automation than the CdG. Though as for the planes themselves, the Rafale is strictly inferior to the F-35C (though significantly cheaper if I'm not mistaken) so perhaps everything balances out in that regard: the Brits have a worse carrier but with better planes.

I'm no insider, but if I were forced to speculate then I'd say that the QE was rushed without a CATOBAR system because Brexit demanded Britain to flex its muscles, even if it meant hamstringing itself in the long term. The QE was originally planned with a CATOBAR system, but that would mean it wouldn't be ready until the mid 2020s.

tl;dr: A FUCKING RAMP

Attached: anime-anime-girls-Kantai-Collection-comics-Kaga-KanColle-Akagi-KanColle-costume-screenshot-computer- (2400x1300, 3.68M)

Literally none of what you just mentioned in that rambling, asinine post is true you fucking weeb trash.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen_Elizabeth-class_aircraft_carrier

>For a period following the 2010 Strategic Defence and Security Review, the government had intended to purchase the F-35C carrier variant and modify one carrier to use the CATOBAR system to launch and recover these aircraft. This was because the cheaper F-35C variant has a greater range and can carry a larger and more diverse payload than the F-35B.[47][76] On 10 May 2012 Defence Secretary Philip Hammond announced in Parliament that the government had decided to revert to its predecessor's plans to purchase the F-35B rather than the F-35C, and to abandon the completion of Prince of Wales to a CATOBAR configuration.[48] The reason given was that "conversion to 'cats and traps' will cost about double what was originally estimated – and would not be delivered until 2023 at the earliest".
>This system speeds up delivery and reduces the size of the crew by automation.[67]

Let's review, shall we?
>No CATOBAR
True
>CATOBAR would result in later delivery
True
>No CATOBAR meant F-35B rather than F-35C
True
>F-35B is inferior to F-35C in range and payload
True
>The above decision was related to Brexit and the "Global Britain" that Leave pushes
Speculation, but I myself stated that I was speculating
>Automation of the QE means it can operate with a smaller staff
Correct
>Fucking weeb
Pic related

The only point of contention is Rafale vs F-35 and I doubt you intend to argue that.

Attached: 1562549333411[1].jpg (897x445, 202K)

Except they do have planes (17-18 thus far), with more coming. (48 confirmed, likely more after)

> but that's very fuel intensive and as a result leads to a shorter operational range
Still the second longest combat range of any maritime fighter in the world, second only to the C model. It's fine.

>The second problem is that the F-35B is also less versatile in what payloads it can use
Like? It can fit all the munitions the UK uses or is likely to use in it. The only one it objectively can't fit is the big 2,000lb PGMs, but they have extremely little need for them.

>All of this means is that strictly speaking the QE is probably worse than the Charles de Gaulle that's almost two decades its senior.
Not even close. QE shits all over CdG in terms of aircraft carried, sortie rate, and general space on deck to operate. Not to mention the F-35 is a world ahead of the Rafale.

>the Brits have a worse carrier
Apart from it carrying more aircraft, better aircraft, launching more sorties for longer, more room for stores, more advanced in every modern aspect (other than missile defences, which the CdG has an edge in), faster, and having two of them so it's not a part time carrier navy like the French.

> then I'd say that the QE was rushed without a CATOBAR system because Brexit demanded Britain to flex its muscles,
Incorrect. The choice of 2x STOVL over 1X CATs was made long before Brexit was ever a thing.

1/2
>its clients so why bother spending time, effort and money on the R&D and production costs for a next generation fighter when you can just buy them from your ally?
You know, of course, except, the British being part of the R&D and production for the F-35 since the beginning of the program.

>The problem is the FUCKING RAMP
The ramp is not a problem since it provides both performance and safety benefits.

>combined with the absence of a CATOBAR system
There is not a single operational carrier that combined the two. They did not want CATOBAR, except when a government minister had a """""very""""" smart idea which was quickly reversed.

>forcing them to operate the QE with F-35B's rather than F-35C's
They weren't "forced" - they wanted to operate F-35Bs.

>The F-35B has horizontal take-off capabilities (with helps when using A FUCKING RAMP to take off)
Like all other jets.

>but that's very fuel intensive
You're welcome to point a source for how much fuel a STOVL takeoff requires compared to a CATOBAR. You'll be shocked.

>and as a result leads to a shorter operational range
No. The position that the F-35B has its lift-fan, is where an extra fuel tank sits in the F-35C. The F-35B has approximately 70% of the range of an F-35C.

>The second problem is that the F-35B is also less versatile in what payloads it can use
The difference between the two is minimal.

>All of this means is that strictly speaking the QE is probably worse than the Charles de Gaulle that's almost two decades its senior.
Nothing to do with QE or CdG - you're a moron for saying a Rafale F3 is more lethal than an F-35.

>The only benefit is that it's "cheaper" due to being fuel based (rather than nuclear) and having a greater degree of automation than the CdG.
Or the fact that it is newer and benefits from having newer technologies, design and standards.

Attached: F35 hardpoints.jpg (1167x642, 149K)

>I'm no insider, but if I were forced to speculate then I'd say that the QE was rushed without a CATOBAR system because Brexit demanded Britain to flex its muscles
Moron, do you think Brexit dictates F-35 delivery lots?

>The QE was originally planned with a CATOBAR system
It was not.

ok let's review your fucking trash analysis seeing as you're so hell bent on digging a bigger hole and making yourself look dumb for niggers on the internet.

>The F-35B has horizontal take-off capabilities
What does this even mean you troglodyte. Of course it has horizontal take off capabilities. Even fucking helicopters can do rolling takeoffs. You idiot. You absolute moron.

>but that's very fuel intensive and as a result leads to a shorter operational range
Taking off reduces fuel. Wow. Who would have fucking thought. A plane. Burning fuel. To take off? I can't wait to read your next analysis on how other planes fly on belle delphine's bathwater and so manage to fly on God's fucking sheer despair at humanity. Of course, that wasn't what you were TRYING to say, was it? What you were TRYING to say was that the plane can take off VERTICALLY. Again, you fool. You absolute mongoloid who cannot tell parallel from perpendicular, left from right, up from fucking down. Nobody ever plans to take off vertically if they want to do anything useful. Nobody. It was never planned and never will happen and mentioning it as if it is a viable scenario highlights just how retarded you actually are and how little you understand.

The f u c k i n g r a m p allows planes to take off with heavier fuel and armament loads than they would otherwise have without the ramp on the same length runway. The whole f u c k i n g c a r r i e r was designed so that with both the ramp and the sheer amount of majestic fucking space they have on deck they have literally zero impact from the fact they're floating in the middle of the ocean.

>The second problem is that the F-35B is also less versatile in what payloads it can use
The F35B can carry everything the F35C can, just with less fuel, because it's centreline tank is a fucking fan and it hasn't got the extended wingtips. But guess f u c k i n g w h a t. The F35B STILL has a combat radius of over 500 nmi on INTERNAL fuel and stores. More than enough to wipe the floor with anything it gets vectored to, but you wouldn't understand that would you? Because all you can do is parrot shitty memes that were last funny about 4 years ago.

> All of this means is that strictly speaking the QE is probably worse than the Charles de Gaulle that's almost two decades its senior.
All of what? The shitty non-arguments you just put forward? The sortie rate for CdG is lower. The air wing is worse. The sensors are worse. The shitty french nuke plant that they keep around for prestige alone means that it spends more time in the dock than at sea, makes it WORSE, not better. By going conventional the UK could afford 2 QEs, meaning there will almost never be a time when the UK cannot shove 2 squadrons of F35Bs up someone's butthole on max 2 weeks notice, with a higher sortie rate and better support system than the CdG.

>I'm no insider
That much is fucking clear. You're not even an outsider. You're a mossy rock in a tidal pool next to the ocean of knowledge, barely part of the flora, let alone fauna. The fact that you're so fucking fixated on CATOBAR and nuclear propulsion highlights you as a screaming autistic 12 year old that doesn't know anything about how naval operations actually work, what is worth prioritising in a new build ship and what isn't worth spending money on in the 21st century. The F35B is a modern fucking marvel of engineering that the ship was designed around. Without it the QEs would be toothless, but that's like saying Top Gun would be shit without F14s. of course it wouldn't fucking work, but it wouldn't have got made either now would it? QE didn't get CATOBAR because the tories were schitzophrenic about what they wanted after Labour decided to go for ramps for cost reasons. This all happened BEFORE Brexit was a gleam of precum in Putin's japseye getting ready to anally violate Farage. Brexit has nothing to do with it, you cock wombling pseudo intellectual fairy that gets triggered by the SIGHT ALONE of a piece of almost triangular metal on the front of a ship that you JUST CAN'T BEAR TO LOOK AT.

You appear to be upset

You seem to be new here

You appear to have been gutted like a fish

Because I was wrong? And you proceeded to sperg out like a retard rather than just telling me like other anons managed to do? I hope for your sake you don't act like that offline, bro.

It's late in Blighty, if he's anywhere near where I'm from he's likely on the piss as it's a bank holiday tomorrow.

You’re confusing me with the user who schooled you.

I should be so lucky, I can't believe you jammy bastards get more holidays than us. You're 2/3 right though, I do have tomorrow off and I have been drinking.

>And you proceeded to sperg out like a retard
Welcome to Jow Forums, now git.

Attached: Capture.png (1359x501, 32K)

>old-ish boat thread
>F35 sperging
roooo

Ivan's a retard, what a surprise.

CATOBAR is shitty and gay and consistantly breaks down leaving the ship unable to perform its function. It requires extra mainainence. CdG rarely sails, constantly breaks down and French naval aviation is suffering serious skill fade because catobar is always broken. France barely has a carrier, has less capable planes and pilots.
Brexit had nothing to do with the design.Another weeb who knows fuckall. Ramps rule.

Sink subs and Surface ships are hilariously outclassed by aircraft, and the UK was country to experience that feeling firsthand. Trying to outfit it like a battleship would be a waste: it has enough surface weapons to waste pirates.

fug

>Sekrit story right now in my book, only for £39.99. Ain't you trust me m8?

Attached: 1467914068783.png (400x400, 13K)

That's because it's an ASW frigate, silly.

The Type 23 is actually a step up from the Type 22, which had far less capability in any area except ASW. And even then, the Type 22 was probably the most effective AAW ship at the Falklands, where its point-defense Sea Wolf missiles were useful against Argentinian fighters screaming over the cliffs at absurd altitudes.

>What is the purpose of the UKs Type 23 frigates?
To beat overinflated Iranian egos like flimsy pinatas.
Next question.

>You're not even an outsider. You're a mossy rock in a tidal pool next to the ocean of knowledge, barely part of the flora, let alone fauna.
kek

Some insider info on the CATOBAR/Ramp debate.

Part of MODs contract with BAE was to allow for a *very* late decsion on whether to go with Cats and Traps or a Ramp, depending on the decison to to procure either F-35B or C. (Note that the Harrier/Tornado replacement aircraft being purchased for the RAF was always going to be the B varient).

After a lot of Cost benefit and forcasting work it was decided to go with F-35C, with two CATOBAR carriers. But it turns out that BAE never actually thought MOD was being serious about the design requirements for the QEII class Carriers so it would have been far to expensive to amend the design at this stage (at this point we're taking about 2010-11, the government is out of money and the whole programme would be in danger if the MOD hadn't made sure cancelling would cost more than finishing the project).

The finacial situation coupled with the early retirement of Harrier GR. 9, the need to help domestic industry as much as possible (Rolls Royce designed/builds the lift Fan in F-35B remember) and the other benefits mentioned by our angry user friend above meant that the decision was reversed and the ski jump carriers were built.

Now if we are talking from a *very* isolated point of view then a CATOBAR carrier with F-35C is a more capable platform than a ski jump, and if we widen it slightly to encompass the Royal Navies traditional Allies it would have been advantagous to be able to recover Rafales and F/A-18s to the deck if need be. (Part of the decision to try for CATOBAR was due to ongoing talks between GB and FR regarding the sharing of Naval Aviation between the two Navies, this fell apart when the right wing media in both countries started screeching).

But the enourmous engineering challenge fitting a CATOBAR system to a conventionally powered ship would be, the added maintence burden, the fact that the RN had 40+ years of experience with ski jumps meant that it was the best decion it could be.

>That much is fucking clear. You're not even an outsider. You're a mossy rock in a tidal pool next to the ocean of knowledge, barely part of the flora, let alone fauna.

Quality lampooning

based angry poster