Babcock International, the defence company has started a post-life extension (LIFEX) on the Royal Navy’s Type 23 frigate HMS Argyll at Babcock Devonport’s Facility.
It is the first Type 23 to begin its post-LIFEX upkeep, adopting a new innovative approach to re-certification at the Frigate Support Centre (FSC).
Babcock will be overhauling key equipment and carrying out design changes for new capabilities such as communications upgrades and mixed crewing. The Duke Class frigate will also receive a full spray coat on the outer bottom and ship side.
Sarah Hilder, Project Manager for HMS Argyll’s upkeep, said in a statement to press:
“HMS Argyll presents a huge opportunity to demonstrate Babcock working in collaboration with our customer throughout the planning period and by implementing new efficient and innovative processes we are striving to complete the project in a vastly reduced timescale compared to a standard upkeep.”
Work began immediately with the vessel currently being prepared for a Lloyds structural survey to achieve an early full ship assessment in just 9 weeks.
Commissioned in 1991, HMS Argyll is the longest-serving Type 23 frigate and was the first to undergo upkeep within the LIFEX programme in 2015. Since she returned to the Royal Navy in 2017, Babcock has continued to extend the life of the Type 23 fleet.
Babcock says that their recent milestones across the programme have included HMS Somerset achieving ready for sea date and commencing Sea Trials earlier this year, HMS Iron Duke recently undocking to continue her upkeep within 2 Basin and HMS St Albans preparing to flood up later this month.
That’s a great image.
It looks like the Kryton is shrink wrapped?
“Out of chaos comes order…”
Both the T26\31 frigates don’t fit in these sheds, they are too long. Something \somewhere else will be needed to dock those ships.
It also makes you wonder what will become of this facility once the T23s have been retired?
Is that right?
Whatever, these are strategic assets and need replacing if so.
Afraid so D, the docks are 134×19.5m, T23s only just fit in. No way aT26\31\45 will get anywhere close.
It’s not as if the docks can be expanded either., There is a road to the North and obviously 5basin wall to the South!!! Those ships won’t be using this facility anytime soon.
I reckon Camellairds in Birkenhead might get the contract in the future as they have been replacing the engines in the type 45s over the last couple of years so they could easily fit in the type 26s and 31s.
You might well be right there, but CL isn’t a naval dockyard, so doesn’t have all the facilities for a extended refit, doing the engine changes one ship at a time isn’t the same level of work as a full refit package. Nothing to say they couldn’t gear up for it mind.
Beam: type 31 19.75 and type 26 20.8m, type 45 21.2m
Would it be a great investment, to upgrade the 3 basins to fit all these three ships?
There have been plans around for years to extend into the basin as they had to for the B3 T42 and T22 to fit in the center dock. Plans are also around to extend into the road to the north.
Its too valuable an asset not to use. Covered drydocks are not that common and they do cut down on delays caused by such things as the excellent liquid sunshine you get in Guz
Believe that Babcock are looking at options with specific reference to the FRC and how it might best be progressed. They have a bit of time obviously.
This would what one could call a major screw-up. 😂
The centre dock is longer, so not sure if Type 31 can fit in….
Wasn’t aware ta, believe it’s 140m long, but same width.
Additional expansion of BAE (T-26) and Babcock (T-31) build halls, in order to accommodate both original build and refits simultaneously? Obviously expensive infrastructure buildout, tendency to restrict competition and thus increase pricing, but probably feasible.
My question: believe MTU DGs for PGMU mod were an advance purchase, if so, and fewer T-23s (the 8 w/ tails) will be retrofitted than rhe 11 originally planned, what happens to surplus units, if already produced? Held as spares? Returned to manufacturer for credit? Even sound planning can be OBE; hazzard of extended timelines.
Realize covered drydock facility would be preferable sol’n, but that might be an entirely new, probably quite expensive project.
Haven’t got a clue ref the MTU DGs question. Believe you are correct on a covered DD facility, any solution is going to be expensive, but believe that Babcock who run the site are looking into solutions!!!!
Navy Lookout has promised a forthcoming article re options to resolve this issue. Unaware of any US shipyards facing similar issue. Perhaps historical preservation is not accorded same priority, or more land is available for development?
Yes, saw that posted in NL. Should be an interesting article when published.
Babcock are already upgrading several docks that are predominantly for SM refits, particularly in light of the Dreadnoughts coming into service, so they are already spending lots of money on that.
There are other docks available, believe that Devonport has some 14/15 docks all told, just that the FRC has the only covered ones.
Thanks for your text. Did not realize Devenport has that many pre-existing docks available to provide possible sol’n. Ground truth surveys are somewhat problematic from this side of the Pond.😁
Awaiting NL article as patiently as feasible (USAF career included a CE assignment).
A combination of things. Yes the USN has more space to develop, and their infrastructure is a lot newer (lets face it a lot of the dry docks the USN and RN have where constructed during their fleets heydays; which for the RN means the basic infrastructure mostly dates to around WWI, and has been updated. USN infrastructure is newer, and therefore larger, needs less updating for bigger ships [yes this is a simplification but hey ho, illustrative purposes). But also there’s a difference between how the USN and RN are building their fleets which is markedly different. The USN… Read more »
Thanks for text Excellent, plausible explanation of comparison between respective shipyards, buttressed w/ supporting data. Actually suspected answer could be as stated, but as an outsider, would be interpreted as a snarky critique of infrastructure.
Best case scenario, the Royal Navy would have standardised on the Type of MTU DG sets, so they could be used all across the Fleet, but the chances of that being the case must be pretty slim.
If specifications as listed on Wiki are correct, very doubtful (different models).
However, MTU may choose to cooperate w/ RN, a significant customer, on an exchange program. Thanks for prompting further reflection.
There is a certain amount of standardisation on RR MTU 4000 family, but not plug and play level. Type 26 MTU 4000 M53B 20 cylinder 3 MW Type 23 MTU 4000 M53B 12 cylinder 1.65 MW Astute b/u MTU 4000 12 cylinder (upgraded from 396 8V) Type 31 MTU 2000 M41B 12 cylinder 0.9 MW electrical and MTU 8000 M71 20 cylinder for propulsion. Type 45 MTU 4000 ?? 4MW (closest fit is M93 @3.9 MW) So the only possibility for spare T23 engines is for the Type 32’s electrical systems. The extra power would come in handy for modular… Read more »
Janes reports the Type 45 as getting the 3 MW M53B 20 cylinder, the same as the Type 26, not a 4 MW engine as reported elsewhere.
Not likely. Govan’s site is limited in size and both Govan and Scotstoun will be full with the T-26 build for years to come. Rosyth has space but between the carrier maint, the T-31/32 build and their bid for FSSS I don’t see where they’d dry dock.
Yield gracefully to greater knowledge of local conditions.
Hmmm…may have found a high priority use for potential spare DGs–as backup electrical supply at Zap. Fourth and sole remaining power line supplying power to the cooling pumps kicked offline due to shelling today. REALLY beneficial if backup power supply is 99.9999% reliable. Otherwise, can you say Fukushima or Chernobyl? 🤔😳
Not *entirely* convinced of that.
If the aerial photos I checked are correct, there seems to be some space, then a road inside the docs, then smoe buildings, then a B road outside the docs.
How much more space do the later ships need?
The inside road is 12-20m away, and the public road is 20-30m away afaics.
Rebuild/expand on site? Will be an interesting cost comparison/project schedule vs. other options. In any event, some contractor(s) will be well compensated.
Apparently the middle dock is 140m long, so for a T,26, you would need an extra 10-15 m of length and 2-3 more for width! Not an easy task, and very expensive I would think!
What about a firepower upgrade?
Don’t be daft, costs money and makes them too aggressive lol
What kind of fire power upgrade? It has 32 VLS cells that will be filled with the newish sea ceptor missiles. She has numerous guns all over the place. Carry’s a helicopter that can attack anything it will encounter. The ship is also bristling decoys and electronic stuff all over the hull. Compare an upgraded 2022 type 23 and a 1991 type 23 systems, weapons and the difference is staggering. This drydocking as the article states is about keeping her in a useable condition for the next few years and making sure all the systems work. Some upgrades are being… Read more »
Oh forgot the ship mounted torpedoes as well.
Also they still have cannister launched AShMs.
Laser for shooting down pesky drones😀
Even members of RN i talk to say we are great at defence and soft kill and very lacking on offencive capability.
Type 23 has decent weapons /sensor complement for its size, what disappoints me is the bigger type 31 will have less firepower
but will we be able to bolt on extra kit should the mission demand it?
Yes.
Yes, IF we invest in the weaponry & modules to allow that & have a crystal ball to tell us what threats our enemies will deploy against each mission. Thankfully in war your enemy never does anything unexpected(!). We also need to get at least an interim AShM PDQ so our ships aren’t outgunned against enemy surface vessels.
To be honest, why not just buy a few of the latest spec Harpoon for the T23’s? (assuming they don’t require additional coms/radar kit)
Unless anyone knows different I think this is the latest state of play with respect to interim AShM.
https://www.navylookout.com/royal-navy-changes-course-on-interim-anti-ship-missile-for-a-second-time/
Cheers Paul.
You mean Fitted For But Never With? 🙃
Yes that is always the issue
Yeah. 7000t combat platform with 3 guns and a dozen self defence anti-air missiles. Those guns must be blooming heavy.
32 cells.
Currently available info says “up to 24 cells”. I’m going to halve that given defence planning strategies for final delivery specs and general lack of money. So we’ll see who gets the closest. Lol.
lol
T31 requirement was for 4000t FLD, 120 m ship, smaller than T23. See T31 RFI. The basic idea was to replace 13 T23 with 8 much more capable T26 and much LESS capable T31. (actually, I understand the decision was to keep 2 CVFs). Simply, Arrowhead 140 is built 1.5 times larger than required as T31 = much larger than the requirement. That’s the cause of its being armed lighter than T23. So, the main question must be “why T31 is so larger than required?” than “why it was so lightly armed?”. Current armament of T31 perfectly matches the T31… Read more »
Spot on. Plus in the future the RN would have the option to upgrade sensors/armament or export to a foreign navy which would have the option to customise with their own sensors/armament. All at minimal extra cost in hull size.
Except that air is free and steel is cheap. If you look at the competitor designs, although smaller, they where not better armed either. The lightly armed bit was ultimately down to the hard budget ceiling on the Type 31, not the size of Arrowhead.
If it was built full spec with lots of juicy weaponry we’d not be getting 5, we’d might not get 3. The whole idea is that they are affordable, and have room to expand going forward. There is limited budget. That is HMGs fault. But it is what it is and this way we get new hulls of a good size in the water. Which is better than having no hulls if industry bleed MoD to death and if we overspec the requirement. I think the T26/31/RB2 mix of high low tier assets is exactly what is needed going forward… Read more »
In fairness, I’m fairly hopeful about the weapons fit out of these ships. The 12 cell ceptor was only a computer graphic rendition. I would be optimistic for a 24 cell ceptor fit as well as mk 41 cells as mentioned by 1SL. If provision is made for a sonar, then these will be very effective and potent ships from the start.
Hmmm…perhaps not immediately, but eventually; necessity is often considered a mother…,😁
In fairness I think the Mk41 is still FFBNW. That being said if ISSGW is back on the plan was to migrate the cannister launchers from the T23’s onto the T31’s… so hopefully that’ll still be a thing.
With the new builds comming online shortly, if something major comes up in the next 5 or 10 years we could delay some of the retirements & increase effective strengths immedeately. The escort fleet is way too small.
Presume it is a possibility, if given sufficient funding by HMG. Chile and Brazil have pioneered the art form of recycling various ships (i.e., HMS Ocean, 3 T-23s) into productive second careers. Fully anticipate bid from Chile for HMS Montrose and possibly a bid for HMS Monmouth Eventually many will realize the Treasury is the principal peacetime threat of RN! On this side of the Pond, Congress is principal threat.
Indeed, most of us on this site are very are that the treasury has badly damaged our forces.
I would rather have 3 fully armed ships than 5 under armed ships , IMHO all R.N. frigates should have the ability to engage a near peer enemy ships or submarines.
It’s much easier to insert a Mk41 into 5 ships that is FFBNW for it than it is to build 3 hulls and train up a crew to man them.
Why were the type 23 not successful?
Anybody else seen this
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-62582156
It is pure wokeism on steroids. Yeah, there isn’t a problem adding some diversity to the armed forces, but it shouldn’t be a factor in recruitment where, for obvious reasons, the majority of sign ups will be white.
It’s actually illegal, yet a lot (possibly most) government agencies do it. Equalities act say’s you can’t discriminate based on race yet we know they do. MI5 have advertised BAME only roles, as has the BBC, NHS, Police Forces & now apparently the RAF. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-48460555
This unfortunately is what happens when people, who are not as smart as they think they are, start focussing on “equality of outcome” instead of “equality of opportunity”.
“First reported by Sky News, pressure to meet those targets was felt by a head of recruitment – who has now resigned and moved to another role.”
Things may have changed but when I was in the mob I didn’t get the option of resigning from roles I didn’t like any more to go and do something else. Not sure if that’s progress or not….. 🤔
Who would have thought, racism against white males and there’s me thinking it only happens to everyone else.🤯
The T23 has been a fantastic ship. When they first came in I thought that their only weakness was the lack of a CIWS to back-up Seawolf. Although VLS Seawolf was a first rate system for its time, the need for terminal guidance limited the number of targets that could be engaged simultaneously. Sea Ceptor has now solved that problem. It was disappointing that 5 of them lacked a tail as part of the ‘peace dividend ‘ and a view that the demise of Russia meant the end of the submarine threat. Decisions since to sell 3 of them to… Read more »
Yep…100%
Ceptor performance is better than the brochure though. Weapon systems are always undersold in the manufacturers blurb as opposed to what they can and do deliver. Ceptor also has an Anti Surface capability now although not in the same class as a heavy ASM. Even a 100kg missile hitting you at M3 is going to give you a headache!
I’m going to take a wild guess and say you are Sunmack on Navy lookout.
Yep
Is that a type 23 looks wrong
In what way ?,
T23 has been a very successful ship.
For crying out loud, when is anyone going to stop going on about buying new ships, maximising the weaponry and start to ask how where is the logistical backup ? Apart from the Submarines and bit of work at Rosyth we have spent zilch on facilities for decades. No large graving dock that is accessible for the QE’s 24 / 7, Rosyth is on the wrong coast and very difficult to access. No all weather facilities to upgrade / refit T45 nor T26 / T31. The frigate complex was built for Leanders not something nudging 8k tonnes. I would build… Read more »
All about England again eh Rodney, just for Info Scotland has the longest coastline in uk, forefront to the n.atlantic, but all you can think about is your own punitive greed.
You prob won’t remember when the Rosyth guys got sent down to bail you out on 2 SSN refits.
But given your thought process your history is only about south England.
FYI I am British and I was born in Newton Stewart from parents both born in what was then Wigtownshire (Dumfries and Galloway). So I think an apology is in order, but I will not hold my breath. The simple reasons for suggesting west coast is it more accessible for operational reasons (ie North Atlantic) and other than Inchgreen no Scottish drydock is either big enough or has 24/7/365 access. My suggestions are based on using what have now and what could be brought back into use and relatively near an experienced workforce. Hence KGV and Gladstone docks, they exist,… Read more »
Guz is upgrading a dock now in the Sub refit complex for decommissioning boats. Its been a long while coming, way to long in fact. When I refitted Brum in 86 out of base port, Dreadnought was in the basin in Rosyth. Its still there now. T26 /31 will start docking after 5 years service ( Lloyds requirements) A 5 year docking should not be a big docking, maybe a month on the blocks for a hull and valve survey, maybe some proip work and possibly a hull paint. The RN has moved away from large midlife refits as it… Read more »
Maybe not a popular call (on here anyway) but Rosyth while being on the wrong coast (and wrong country 😉) has got some nice big holes that could be used for every UK vessel. While they’re not covered, as GB says, they put the new ‘frigate shed’ up pretty toot sweet and while its a minor ball ache, the QE’s can get under the bridges.
Am I missing something ???
At present there are a few issues which preclude using the Big Holes at Rosyth for refits etc for Frigates or Destroyers. The main one is that they are the only suitable Drydocks that can at present support the QE’s. So if either has an issue they need to be available.
The other issue is that due to the above that would have to be a massive construction able to accommodate a QE.
There are dry socks on the west side of the U.K. that could take a carrier. Harland and Wolff, I think the one at inverclyde can aswell. Problem is what do the staff needed to refit a carrier do in the years between refits. Without a steady stream of work it’s wasteful. I don’t get it’s the wrong coast. The U.K. has the sea right round it so access is not a problem to either side. To have a dedicated carrier refit facilities you would need enough carriers to have a steady stream of work for the yard. A minimum… Read more »
Haha I just reread the post and I said dry socks instead of dry docks
4x 30k ton Amphibious ships. 8x 30k ton RFA (multi mission: tanker and dry stores). 4x 40k ton Carriers (stretched version of the 30k ton, good enough for France, good enough for me).
That’s 16 large ships using the same Hull (mostly). Build one every two years for 32 years of life each. Recycle one every two years. Mid life refit one every two years. That’s more than enough for one yard.
H&W I’m pretty sure bid for the carrier work and lost, and Inchgreen is really just a hole in the ground, nothing else there. Both would have required huge amounts of investment to be able to service the carriers.
Inchgreen is suppose to be being used for ship breaking, although I don’t think anything has been scraped there yet.
Good Morning Dave. With respect to the Chemistry factor and as an ignoramus on the technical detail here, I presume you refer to the effect of corrosion on the hull as the critical issue determining how long a ship remains viable in terms of upgrades/life extensions? It seems to me that the only way the RN can maintain or slightly increase the number of Escorts on the water in the medium turn is as per the article above-extend the service of the 23’s as the new frigates are commisioned into the fleet as additions and not one for one replaements?… Read more »
..in the medium term..Edit not working.
On the same subject, there have been huge advances in coatings technology over the years and maybe this is another approach to preserving hull life? What is needed is high film thickness with the best possible abrasion and impact resistance. The coating is only as good as its weakest spot for once corrosion starts at a damaged point it spreads like cancer. Coatings also shed microns also due to UV chalking and the effect of immersion in sea water. My experience in coatings is based in the building industry and I realise the marine environment has it’s own unique requirements.… Read more »
As long as there’s insufficient money in the equipment plan to even cover current shipbuilding commitments, any medium term increase in escort numbers achieved by further life extending Type 23s will be temporary, masking the numbers of ships available in the long term. It will set us up for a subsequent implosion in escort numbers in the late 2030s. The Lifex strategy is only viable if there’s a parallel financial commitment to speedy long term builds. If Lifex sucks money from new builds, we will end up in an even worse state when the music stops. The limit as to… Read more »
A bit of a long reply but worth the read I believe . Hull life is determined by the Lloyds survey. First blast off the paint then survey, preferably in the first 20% of the dock time. From that survey you determine how much steel needs to be replaced. If steel plate is wasted or stiffeners and longy’s are wasted you cut them out and weld in a new steel. Its a tried and tested solution done to ships all over the world. Some of the vessels I have managed refits on in my current life have had massive amounts… Read more »
Morning GB-thanks for info-always nice to hear it from someone from the inside who knows! I suppose as with other structures there is only so much cutting out and welding you can do before you have to call it a day and/or until it becomes cheaper to replace! Perhaps as a few others have commented here that maybe building more hulls with less hardware gives a better option for quick upgrades-the dreaded ‘fitted for but not with’? Seems like a reasonable compromise between tight budgets and operational needs as for e.g during 1982? Not ideal but while there is now… Read more »
some of the ships we re plated where over 40years old and are still going strong. Plate wears out, remove and replace it and upgrade what’s inside.
You would need a lot more cash.to replace the vessel than replate it.
Thanks GB. In theory then it would make more sense to keep the Type 23’s going for a longer period as the best way to increase the size of the Escort fleet and just keep upgrading as with say, the B52’s in the USAF. My wife has a 2007 Mercedes 320 CDI saloon-amazing vehicle 165kw and over 500NM torque!! Couldn’t afford to replace and getting expensive to upgrade. Not quite analogous to the Type 23 story but some similarities 😅 I see the temperatures are climbing in Arabia!!
Cheers
Thank you for the narrative The historical record inspires confidence in the eventual maturation and evolution of T-31 class, regardless of original equipment provision. Never knew they were to as the Skoda class by T-22 crews. 😁
…known as…🙄
Go Babcock!
Could someone please explain the specific mechanics of usage of of the site’s edit function? Would resolve proofreading issue. Thanks.
.
Edit not working.
If you look to the right where the red flag is. Moved your arrow cursor straight down from that flag to around the horizontal line where the “Reply” icon is.
There is usually a symbol looking like a wheel. Click that and you get the “Edit” prompt.
And like Davis says, it is not there!
Ah, it is. It is working for me.
Very time limited.
*edit* literally if you reload the page it usually goes away in my experience.
I find that the formatting icons sometimes don’t appear for original comments and replies. However, if I edit my post, I get the formatting icons. Opposite to your experience, I frequently have to refresh the page in order to be able to edit.
Keeping those ‘old ladies ‘ going for as long as possible is refreshing. How many times have we seen ships or whole classes retired because of the age of the vessels the two main ones for me, being ocean just out of a mega millions refit sold to Brazil, the whole upholder submarine class, ark royal, FIVE YEARS BEFORE IT’S due out of service date the disappearance of the typ22 class many sold at a massive loss to the British taxpayer should be looking to operate our ships for as long as we can do.especially when replacements are so slow… Read more »