Talk:Type 22 frigate

These characterisitics are too complex and messy to be displayed as bullet points, they really need to be tabulated, is there an agreed standard table for this before I go to the effort of doing it? Emoscopes 06:09, 22 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Get the table layout from HMS Indefatigable (1909), its the defacto standard for RN ships in my experiences (ie I use it). There are sophisticated templates out there but they are a lot more effort and templating isn't kind on the wiki servers. GraemeLeggett 10:33, 22 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I drew up a template anyway Template:Royal_Navy_(escort), but if it isnt good to use it as a template, it might be nice to have an agreed standard table layout and terminologies. I personally get a bit irked when I find "americanisms" like FFG or ASW creeping in to Royal Navy terminology, and it would be good to know what units to use (imperial over metric?) etc. Emoscopes 08:24, 23 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Smart looking template though. Templates are good for nav boxes if they are open to expansion eg the British missile one. If you do find those americanisms wikilink them so at least the non-American can pick up on the meaning. I also favour the rule for technical writing - before using a abbreviation spell it out at least once. eg "Anti-Submarine Warfare (ASW)". There is a lot of argument over the Imperial/Metric issue, but arguing over precendence of two numbers is largely pointless compared to getting some content down in the article. What I do is if I have only one set of numbers I put them in. If I have both I put the second in brackets afterwards. If I do the conversion from imperial to metric I don't get carried away with accuracy (whats 6 inches or 15 cm when its not specified if the length is at the waterline or the tip of the prow).GraemeLeggett 10:23, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Is the Type 22 seen as some sort of command ship in the royal navy eg does it have better command and control ability than the type 42 destroyers and the type 23 frigates.Corustar 15:12, 12 June 2006 (UTC) Displacements wrong for type 22 batch 3 its 5300 tonnes it says so on the royal navy website.Corustar 21:31, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

You need to distinguish between 'capacity' and 'capability' here. Being comparatively large ships, T22s are comfortably able to accommodate a Flag Officer and his staff. Complements at sea tend to be a long way below design capacity. By contrast, carrying an Admiral and staff for an extended period is difficult on a T23, where adding even a small number of additional persons is very difficult. I once asked a T23 officer whether they could accommodate a few extra people and he said "they'd have to sleep in the Burma Road!" (RN-speak for central corridor).

Regarding enhanced capability, I raised this question on a visit to a T22. The answer was necessarily less than wholly clear. My understanding is that two of the four B3 ships carried enhanced CCC at that time, but that's only my interpretation.

As for displacement, it all depends on whether we're talking standard, normal or deep load. These can differ a lot, and navies generally quote deep load (more impressive). Here are the figures I have for HMS Campeltown:

Standard:    4200 tonnes

Normal:      4850 tonnes

Deep load:   5250 tonnes

The RN's 5300 tonnes figure is a rounding of the deep load figure.

I hope this helps. I'm not sure if there's a convention for which tonnage figure Wikipedia uses. (This gets even more complicated with merchant ships)

--Vvmodel (talk) 20:10, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Note the type 22 does not have torpedoes, in fact the references for the armaments are from an outdated source, and given the relatively fast pace of change in changing weapons systems better references are needed, see http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/operations-and-support/surface-fleet/type-22-frigates/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.2.49.234 (talk) 14:36, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Availability
The last couple of lines on the Avalability section look wrong: "HMS Sheffield 2012 – to be superseded by a T45 Destroyer" "HMS Coventry 2001 – to be superseded by HMS St. Albans, a T23 Frigate." Should that 2012 be 2002? Starfiend (talk) 11:38, 9 February 2012 (UTC)


 * The text reflects the ref. - David Biddulph (talk) 11:43, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Cumberland
The table says HMS Cumberland was ordered 27 October 1984 and laid down 12 October 1984, two weeks before she was orderd. Is this really correct? /Esquilo (talk) 08:14, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Slightly garbled sentence
A pair of L/60 Bofors were fitted in the first batch for patrol and junk busting on summer Indian Ocean deployments, but proved expedient in the Falkland were T22 captains considered they interfered with concentrating on Seawolf setup.

Regards to all.

Notreallydavid (talk) 08:34, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

A question
Perhaps someone more knowledgeable than myself can answer this question. Why are Type 22s commonly referred to a frigates, yet in declassified official documents in the National Archives, they are repeatedly referred to as destroyers? One example being a MOD (Navy Department) document DEFE 69/1545 "Nuclear weapon deployments at sea (WE177)" Enclosure E77 page 8 dated 20 Aug 1982, and declassified 30 November 2018. This reference is one of many in this document and numerous other declassified documents to the Type 22 as destroyers with stowage capacity for three TNWs.

Can someone explain? George.Hutchinson (talk) 11:44, 15 January 2019 (UTC)


 * TNW = Theatre Nuclear Weapon and in this case the WE.177A weapon used as ether an air-dropped strike bomb from a carrier or as a NDB (Nuclear Depth Bomb) for ant-submarine use delivered by ship's helicopter. A Type 22 had deep protected storage for 2 TNW and a less protected storage for 1 ready-use weapon. Source the London Navy Dept archives.George.Hutchinson (talk) 12:46, 29 January 2019 (UTC)