How many Type 23 Frigates are operational?

The Type 23 is a very highly rated,ASW Frigate, so although the design is getting on a bit its still a good ship.

Tail and Merlin equipped units are by far and away the best Surface ASW assets anywhere in the world.
Even non-tail T23 using active sets are pretty good.

During ASW exercises T23s turn on an underwater transponder known affectionately as the lepers bell. Its there for Sub safety because on a number of occasions allied subs have had near misses with T23s because the Sub couldn’t passively detect them. The T23 in the Patrol Quiet or Ultra Quiet state with the tail out running on electric drive is a hole in the ocean.

Hi Gunbuster, always love your insight.

Will the Type 26s also be able to operate the same ‘hole in the ocean’ as the Type 23s? Will they be better ASW platforms than the T23 or merely the same? I would hope with the significant unit cost and advances in technology they would be better but us laymen have no idea. We have exposure to only that which we read in the media.

Thank you

T26 will be better. As tech moved on from T22 to T23, T23 will be in the shadow of T26. Lots of quietening tech from sub programmes now goes into surface ASW units.
Double isolation rafting, Hull to machinery isolation, better equipment design…

Add to that the latest sonar equipment and it will be a superb ASW unit.

“Tail and Merlin equipped units are by far and away the best Surface ASW assets anywhere in the world.”

And you know this how?
Until we’re involved in a war with Russia or China there’s no way of knowing how well ASW Type 23s (or Type 26s) will or won’t perform.

“on a number of occasions allied subs have had near misses with T23s because the Sub couldn’t passively detect them.”

Sources?

Let’s just say I have been there, done that and got numerous T shirts…
Be they for TAPs in the Gap or else where where we tracked a number of subs and they where not all Russian… To numerous CASEX exercises where the Lepers Bell is mandated in use to avoid the issues described. If it wasn’t needed then we wouldn’t turn it on to help the sub out.

“Let’s just say I have been there, done that and got numerous T shirts…”

Bully for you. And how much action have you seen in actual wars against Russia and China? The answer to that would be none at all.

“To numerous CASEX exercises where the Lepers Bell is mandated in use to avoid the issues described.”

Using an underwater transponder to prevent collisions in peacetime is one thing. Using it in wartime would be suicidal. Plus using it in exercises makes for totally unrealistic conditions.

And you’re claiming that subs can’t detect Type 23s. Maybe not easily or at considerable range if the Type 23s are stationary or moving very slowly in favourable sea states, but in bad sea states and/or sailing at higher speeds a Type 23 isn’t going to be silent. As it slams into the waves it’ll make a lot of noise for example. And considering how quiet modern subs are (both SSNs and especially diesel-electric AIP subs), they’re extremely hard to detect using passive sonar. That said, if I were Russian or Chinese I’d use my subs to take out the Tide-class ships as well as the carrier and the Type 45s (which are said to be extremely noisy). Let anti-ship missiles take out the Type 23s.

You wrote: “on a number of occasions allied subs have had near misses with T23s because the Sub couldn’t passively detect them.”

I asked for sources and you haven’t provided any.

Plus surely this means that the T23s couldn’t detect the subs either. If they could, then there wouldn’t have been near misses.

Even subs have trouble detecting each other: HMS Vanguard and the French Le Triomphant skillfully managed to collide, which doesn’t exactly fill me with confidence considering they’re both SSBNs. Aside from the fact that they (and all subs) should have automatic proximity sensors using lasers/LIDAR for example, it seems to me that hunting subs using surface ships and subs isn’t the best way to go about things.

Large numbers of drones make far more sense. They’d be cheaper, could be built in large numbers and could cover large areas of ocean. By comparison, we could only dedicate a couple of Type 23s or Type 26s at most to a carrier group. Drones could also be used as suicide drones, mimicking the sound of surface ships in order for enemy subs to waste torpedoes and/or anti-ship missiles on relatively cheap drones. Cheap drones could also use active sonar, which would be suicidal for an ASW Type 23 or any equivalent manned vessel. If these drones are destroyed it’s no big deal, since they’ve made an enemy sub waste a precious torpedo.

That said, it would be simpler still to take out sub bases rather than looking for subs in the vast ocean. Even nuclear-powered subs need to go back to base to swap crews and to take on food, medication, medical supplies, toiletries, etc. Long-ranged aircraft firing long-range missiles could take out sub bases from beyond the range of enemy defences and long-ranged fighters. They could also take out ships, naval bases and air bases within range of the missiles. And unlike carrier aircraft, they’d have sufficient range and would be able to carry enough missiles to overwhelm enemy defences.

Using surface ships to hunt subs is a ridiculously old-fashioned and inefficient way to carry out this mission. In fact the same could be said of the missions that carriers and destroyers carry out too, since in a war with Russia or China no high-end warships are going to last long against anti-ship missiles fired from land, aircraft, ships and subs. They’ll also face the threat of torpedoes, UUVs and mines.

If we use long-range aircraft firing long-range missiles on the other hand, why do we even need high-end warships at all? Unlike surface ships, these aircraft wouldn’t be at threat from anti-ship missiles, torpedoes, UUVs or mines. They could fire missiles from beyond the range of enemy defences and they’d also be far cheaper and far more effective than a carrier group.

RAND wargames came to the exact same conclusion, namely that surface ships wouldn’t last in a war against Russia or China: https://breakingdefense.com/2019/03/us-gets-its-ass-handed-to-it-in-wargames-heres-a-24-billion-fix/

“Until we’re involved in a war with Russia
or China there’s no way of knowing how well ASW Type 23s (or Type 26s) will or won’t perform.”

The same applies to Russian and Chinese vessels performance in a war with the West.

They certainly didn’t do well when put to test by the Israeli’s and the Iraq wars!

“The same applies to Russian and Chinese vessels performance in a war with the West.”

Obviously, that goes without saying.

But the West doesn’t have air-launched or ship-launched missiles that outrange DF-26 and Kinzhal. The West doesn’t have ship-launched anti-ship missiles that outrange Kalibr, Oniks and YJ-18. The West doesn’t have anti-sub missiles that outrange the Russian Type 65 torpedo. No Western warships or subs have anti-torpedo torpedoes. No Western subs have IDAS missiles.

If a carrier group is staying out of the range of DF-26 or Kinzhal, then no carrier aircraft have the range to reach land. (This applies to the F-35B, F-35C, Super Hornet and Rafale M.) Same goes for ship-launched TLAMs – they lack range. So whether Russian and Chinese tech works in a war as advertised, at least they have stuff that on paper at least could cause the West a lot of pain. The West on the other hand lacks a lot of capability it would need in a war against either country.

As for Israeli wars, Israel hasn’t been fighting Russia or China. As for Iraq, it might have been a large military, but it was full of old, obsolete equipment. A war with Russia or China would be a totally different story and the West isn’t adequately prepared for such a war.

I wrote: “No Western subs have IDAS missiles.”

Correction, German Type 212 subs do. I should have written “IDAS missiles aren’t widespread on Western subs.”

You after a bite?

You have zero real world experience and it shows to a glaringly obvious degree.
The total premise of your argument that the RN wouldn’t last against Russia or China is it appears, built on something you read, in a paper that somebody wrote and posted in Wiki.

WIKI!

When you have some real world experience come back and we can discuss it, spin some dits about sitting in the GIUK gap in Harry Roughers doing TAPS and argue about it being your round and that you should drink beer not Vodka.

Firstly, if your reply was directed at me, then you should have replied to me instead of yourself.

Secondly, my claim that the RN wouldn’t last against Russia or China isn’t based on Wikipedia as you claim, it’s based on common sense and RAND wargames: https://breakingdefense.com/2019/03/us-gets-its-ass-handed-to-it-in-wargames-heres-a-24-billion-fix/

Did you even read that article?

“Wow… Did you get a set of top trumps for your birthday? Please thank your mummy!”

What an idiotic, puerile comment. Grow up.

“Rule 1 Never beleive Wiki.
Rule 2 Never beleive Wiki”

*believe
And why’s that exactly?

“Other good things to do…
Join up and spend 30 plus years as a weapon engineer.”

And what will that achieve? Type 23s (like all RN ships) seriously lack offensive and defensive capability.

Seems to me you know I’m right, but it hurts your pride to admit it, so you lash out instead. The RN is utterly unfit for purpose uness we’re fighting much weaker opponents. And even when we did in the Falklands, they still gave us a bloody nose. China or Russia would wipe the floor with us.

“Ok… point by point because I am bored and its my lunch time…”

Not too bored to post a long comment though, eh?

“Hull Sonar- 2050”

Source?

https://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/our-organisation/the-fighting-arms/surface-fleet/frigates/type-23/hms-montrose simply states “She is equipped with sonar to detect submarines…” but doesn’t specify the type of sonar.

“Towed array- None Its a GP T23 without a tail”

So not a dedicated ASW Type 23 then. You wrote “Montrose has everything fitted (and then some!)”, except it doesn’t have a towed array sonar, so no it doesn’t have EVERYTHING fitted. And there are plenty of other things that Montrose doesn’t have.

“DLF 3 is fitted below the bridge wings , 2 canisters per side. I have exchanged them when they have become lifex on Montrose.”

Source? No mention of this on the Royal Navy site.

“MASS decoys- Not in UK Service…”

I know they’re not in UK service, but they’d be a sensible addition (or replacement), since they’re designed to decoy any type of missile regardless of its guidance method (radar, IR, TV).

“… but Sea Gnat is with Chaff, IR and active rounds.”

Sophisticated missiles can filter out chaff and IR decoys. This is why MASS would make sense since it’s designed to thwart any type of missile regardless of its guidance method, including missiles that use TV guidance like the Kh-59 for example.

“A state-of-the-art EW system- Errr… its pretty much state of the art and it has a number of special fit add-ons”

What does it use? No mention on the RN site and Wikipedia says that Type 23s use “UAF-1 ESM or UAT Mod 1”.
Plus ESMs aren’t the same thing as a fully fledged EW suite like AN/SLQ-32 for example.

Type 45s on the other hand, according to Wikipedia, have “UAT Mod 2.0 (2.1 planned)”, so surely that’s better than what the Type 23s use? A fully fledged EW suite would be even better though.

“CEC- Not in UK service.”

Again, I know that, but RN ships would be more effective if they had it since it makes it harder to jam missiles and provides superior situational awareness.

“Anti Torpedo- STDS is fitted on the quarterdeck with active decoys on the upperdeck above the bridge area.”

SSTD is a soft-kill system, I was talking about anti-torpedo torpedoes such as SSTD CAT, Sea Spider, MU90 Hard Kill and Tork, which are hard-kill systems. Subs can use Torbuster.
Sophisticated torpedoes can filter out decoys and I doubt that wire-guided torpedoes can be decoyed period. Wake-homing torpedoes are also particularly hard to deal with.

“DC( Kingfisher) its a drawing board idea!”

OK, so fit it when it’s available. Depth charges would make Type 23s (and any ship) more effective and survivable.

“But the ship carries onboard and the helo flies with MK 11 DC as well as Sting Ray.”

Sting Ray as a ship-launched weapon has woeful range. Type 23s and Type 26s need an anti-sub missile that outranges the longest ranged enemy torpedoes. Russian Type 65 torpedoes for example have a max range of 100km. This would also mean that the ship has anti-sub capability if a helicopter can’t take off for whatever reason (too windy, under repair/maintenance, sick crew members),

“Long Range SAM– Sea Ceptor is longer ranged than Sea Wolf was.”

Well that’s nothing to write home about.

“As most aircraft launch 100+ Mile range ASMs whats the point of a long range missile if you launch from outside the AAW envelope?”

I don’t understand what you’re asking.

RN ships need a long-ranged missile to keep enemy aircraft at arm’s length. SM-6 would be ideal for this with a max range of 460km. Or else a much longer-ranged variant of Aster 30. Or both since SM-6 can also be used against ballistic anti-ship missiles and as an anti-ship missile against warships that aren’t the most high-end ones.

“CIWS– Never fitted to a T23 as Sea Wolf and now Sea Ceptor do the same job.”

Type 23s carry just 32 CAMMs (which have only been tested against a subsonic Mirach drone AFAIK). Not hard to overwhelm a Type 23 with anti-ship missiles fired from land, aircraft, ships and subs.

Type 23s would be far more survivable if they had a decent modern CIWS and/or a gun such as the BAE Mk110 57mm that has good magazine depth firing 3P and MAD-FIRES ammo (which would also provide commonality with the Type 31s). I’d even consider removing the 4.5-inch gun and fitting a 57mm instead.

“By the way the Millennium gun needs a separate tracking system for the gun to engage the target…”

Which is good for redundancy. If the ship’s fire control systems aren’t working, then the Millennium Gun will still work.

“more complexity and more to get damaged or to break when its most needed.”

Very weak argument. ANYTHING can get damaged or not work when it’s most needed.

“Guns– MK 8 Mod 1 with ER Base Bleed Rounds.”

This is a 4.5-inch gun.
AIUI 5-inch guns are required to fire HVPs, which would provide another useful layer of defence against anti-ship missiles, and especially if they could fire airburst shells.

“I was an Oto Melara gun Maintainer in my previous job I know what the limits are with that system.”

What limits in particular?
DART and PFF rounds would provide another useful layer of defence against anti-ship missiles.

“Long range ASMs– Harpoon is fitted and due to eventually be replaced.”

Harpoon is garbage. It lacks range, it’s slow and it’s not stealthy.

That said, the only Western anti-ship missile that outranges Kalibr, Oniks and YJ-18 is the Tomahawk Block Va, but that too is slow and unstealthy.

It’s mind-boggling that there isn’t a decent ship-launched anti-ship missile available with adequate range, that’s high supersonic (or at least able to accelerate in its terminal phase) and that’s stealthy. It would be even more likely to hit its target if like Perseus if carried mini missiles internally and if an EW variant was developed to make it hard to detect and target in the first place. That said, an EW variant wouldn’t stop it being detected by EO/IR sensors. If such a missile could be fitted with a laser to blind EO/IR sensors all the better.

“So the opposition has long range missiles… Its all about the Kill chain…”

Oh the old kill-chain argument. Ships can be detected using geostationary satellites (with telescopes, radar, IR sensors, ELINT/COMINT sensors), OTH radars, land-based ELINT/COMINT installations, maritime surveillance aircraft, long-range fighters and long-range drones.

“Lasers– Not in UK service.”

I know, but why on earth not? 1+ megawatt lasers were tested years ago (YAL-1, MIRACL). Lasers this powerful could shoot down any anti-ship missile I’d have thought, weather permitting.

Even Dragonfire could blind and/or burn out the sensors on anti-ship missiles.

Even laser dazzlers would be good enough to blind IR and TV guidance on missiles.

“Microwave weapons– about to be trialled on T23 along with Dragonfire.”

Source? If true, this is a good step in the right direction.

“5 Inch guns– The T23 has a 4.5 gun.”

Yeah I know, I addressed this above.

“A single T 23 is not going to take anyone’s fleet on on its own.”

I never said it would. But Type 23s (and ALL RN ships) need to be heavily up-armed and up-defended to give them a chance in a war against Russia or China. At present all our ships wouldn’t last long at all.

That said, I really don’t see the point of high-end warships in a war with Russia or China. Long-range aircraft carrying dozens of long-range missiles would make far more sense to take out ships and land targets, which I addressed in another reply.

“Its going to be part of a larger fleet of ships that mutually protect each other.”

And how exactly are they going to do that against an onslaught of anti-ship missiles fired from land, aircraft, ships and subs, as well as torpedoes and mines?

So, all in all, no the Montrose doesn’t have “everything fitted (and then some!)” as you claimed. In a war with Russia or China it wouldn’t last long at all.

So no a T23 doesn’t have everything fitted… But it does have everything fitted that a T23 should have fitted and then some.
In your top trumps list of nice to haves you would need something the size of a modern day Kirov to fit it onto.

So please let me know what, besides top trumps and wiki is your experience with weapon systems and fighting a Warship?
How many sea drafts did you serve on a T23? For that matter any other RN warships… when was the last time if any that you set foot on a T23?

For myself 34 years as a Weapon Engineer and spending the last 15 at the top of the tree as a Charge Chief/Warrant 2 and Warrant 1, being one of the system engineers onboard. On a T23, 2 sea drafts as the weapons group Chief and one as System engineer plus other drafts to T22, T42, LPD, MCMV, a stint in Hong Kong doing Oto Melara base maintainer, Nato NCIS and a couple of other foreign jobs all as a maintainer or system engineer.

I was on a T23 last week and will be again in around 3 weeks so you could say for any of the answers to your puerile questions I am the source.

“So no a T23 doesn’t have everything fitted…”

I know it doesn’t, so why did you say the Montrose does?

“But it does have everything fitted that a T23 should have fitted…”

What Type 23s need, and what ANY surface ship needs, is the ability to be effective and survivable.

GP Type 23s are only good for missions that involve a low-to-medium level of risk, so escorting commercial vessels in the Persian Gulf for example. In some respects GP T23s are better than T31s, in other respects worse. The ideal vessel for the Persian Gulf mission would take the best elements from both vessels.

As for ASW Type 23s they seriously lack defensive and offensive capability. So-called dedicated ASW vessels with no anti-sub missiles, no anti-torpedo torpedoes, no depth charges and no sub-hunting drones like Arcims or Seagull? Seriously? The mind boggles. They’re also totally inadequately armed to deal with a saturation attack of anti-ship missiles. As for ballistic anti-ship missiles, forget it. (But then again, even Type 45s have no way of shooting them down and they’re supposedly dedicated AAW ships.)

ALL RN & RFA ships are under-armed and under-defended (carriers, destroyers, frigates, oilers/replenishment ships).

That’s why I suggested using long-range aircraft firing long-range missiles from beyond the range of enemy defences instead of using a carrier group in a war with Russia or China. It would be far cheaper, far more effective and result in far fewer deaths on the Western side.

A carrier group might have its uses in other scenarios (e.g. a Falklands Part 2), where you need to get troops ashore (well assuming amphibious ships and landing craft are part of the carrier group), but against Russia or China a carrier group would need to stay out of the range of DF-26 and Kinzhal and so it would be rendered entirely impotent. Meanwhile Russian or Chinese subs would pick off our ships.

In the Falklands we fired 200 torpedoes trying to destroy 1 Argentinian sub. For some reason the sub’s torpedoes were playing up and not working properly (maybe it was MI6/SIS sabotage?), but whatever we didn’t get the sub, but we killed a lot of whales instead.

Russia and China on the other hand have more than just 1 sub. It’s going to be a bloodbath. RAND wargames say the same thing: https://breakingdefense.com/2019/03/us-gets-its-ass-handed-to-it-in-wargames-heres-a-24-billion-fix/

We need to adopt new, better strategies and tactics against them. And using surface ships shouldn’t play any role in them at all.

It’s not hard to work out why, it’s common sense. Something you clearly lack, despite all your experience.

The Astutes (and their replacements) would be our only useful asset in a war with Russia or China, although we need dozens more of them and they’d need VL cells, Torbuster, IDAS, anti-ship missiles and ideally a way to launch UCAVs. We also need to start building diesel-electric AIP subs (ideally modelled on the German Type 212) and also start building relatively cheap sub-hunting USVs/UUVs in vast numbers. Have them built by relatively small companies. The moment BAE Systems or other big players get involved there’ll be inevitable mission creep and what should be cheap drones will end up costing silly money.

“In your top trumps list of nice to haves…”

Making ships effective and survivable aren’t “nice to haves” you halfwit, they’re ESSENTIALS. Did you see what happened in the Falklands? Ships were sunk and damaged all because they lacked VITAL capability, not because they lacked nice-to-have capability. Nothing I listed that you dismissively and contemptuously refer to as “Top Trumps” are nice-to-have features. They’d all provide different layers of defence & offence and make ships far harder to take out and so make them much more survivable and effective.

“… you would need something the size of a modern day Kirov to fit it onto.”

Yeah, and?

If we’re going to build surface ships we should go all in or not bother.

Personally I wouldn’t bother because long-range aircraft firing long-range missiles would be far cheaper.

“So please let me know what, besides top trumps and wiki is your experience with weapon systems and fighting a Warship?”

I have no experience at all. I’ve never served in the armed forces.

But you seem to think that your experience as a Weapon Engineer makes you an expert in naval strategy and tactics. It doesn’t. Common sense tells me you have no idea what you’re talking about. You’re letting patriotism and professional pride cloud sound judgement.

They also had for the time modern German boats. Lot of BS has come out from Argentine vets post war about what they coulda woulda shoulda and in the case of Invincible didda. Can’t comment on all the claims but all those I’ve seen were shown to be fertiliser.