Talk:Type 23 frigate

Vertical Launch Seawolf (VLS)
I think it is important to stress the vertical launch nature of the surface-to-air missile system---it should be referred to as "Vertical Launch Seawolf (VLS)". Although it is a variant (perhaps derivative is better term) of the (conventional) Seawolf missile system it is a rather significant variant that was designed for Type 23 frigates and first fitted on HMS Norfolk(F230). Obviously there are common components within the sytem but there also are enormous differences---don't try and fire a conventional (un-boosted) Seawolf missile from a VLS system. It may be that, if the missile system was an after-thought, conventional Seawolf couldn't easily by assimilated into the existing design?

In addition I believe "Seawolf" not "Sea Wolf" is correct. I think it was generally known as "VL Seawolf" by the development team and in the B.Ae. documentation of the time. However, I suppose with such a long history it is quite possible earlier conventional (non-VL) versions were known as "Sea Wolf" and it later on it became known as "VL Seawolf". It appears from a quick survey of some sources (i.e. Naval Technology websites, HMS Norfolk Commissioning Book, and contemporary B.Ae. blurb) that they mostly refer to it as "VL Seawolf", but you can always find the odd "Sea Wolf" thrown in. Unfortunately, the R.N. Type 23 web page consistently uses "Vertical Launch Sea Wolf". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ratuk (talk • contribs) 19:57, July 18, 2006

Both 'Sea Wolf' and 'Seawolf' seem to be in almost equal use, even in the same publications! For example, here is the use of both terms on the website of BAe Systems, who supplied the system:

'''"Sea Wolf Mid Life Upgrade (SWMLU)

"Our involvement with the Seawolf missile system extends back to the 1960s when the Royal Navy issued a requirement for effective hard kill protection of maritime vessels against the anti-ship missile threat."'''

My own view would be that 'Sea Wolf' is to be preferred - the Navy seems to use this nomenclature more often; it is consistent with "Sea Dart" (which is almost never described as "Seadart"); and the term SWMLU ('Sea Wolf Mid Life Upgrade') seems to imply the use of two words to describe this missle. Then again, the GWS 26 version is usually abbreviated 'VLS' (Vertical Launch Seawolf)....

--Vvmodel (talk) 12:38, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

POV
User:144.138.25.208 made a number of edits to the article yesterday, twice adding the phrase;
 * HMS Westminster,Northumberland and Richmond are presently the most advanced anti submarine frigates in the world.

I reverted this the first time and left a friendly message on User talk:144.138.25.208 asking them to consider the NPOV and directing them to the guidelines. The same user has now edited this article again under a similar IP User:144.138.25.150. I reverted a similar edit 3 times on the article Type 45 destroyer which changed a sentence from;
 * the Type 45 will be one of the most advanced and powerful class of air defence warships in the world.

to read;
 * the Type 45 will be the most advanced and powerful class of air defence warships in the world.

I therefore warned them that persistant edits not conforming to the NPOV may be considered vandalism. In my view, Wikipedia is not a place for personal opinions about whether or not a ship class is the most or one of the most advanced designs in the world. Without substantial support from primary sources, the former can never be justified. I do not wish to get caught up in a pointless revert war, therefore I have not reverrted the article again. That's not why I contribute to Wikipedia, but I would appreciate thoughts from other editors on the matter. Emoscopes Talk 12:12, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

My comment here is that the tag "most advanced" (etc) would have to be revised very frequently, because each newly-commissioned (or refitted) ship can generally claim such a title for a short time. --Vvmodel (talk) 12:05, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

SEAWOLF ON TYPE 23
I don't believe the comments on relying on accompanying RFAs for VL Seawolf protection are correct. The early design studies I have seen (in Brown 'Rebuilding the RN' and Freedman 'British Destroyers') have VL Seawolf but no 4.5" gun, added to the design after the Falklands. There may be some confusion with some of the early designs which had more limited hanger and aircraft maintenance facilities, planning to use those on the accompanying RFAs accompanying. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.110.109.210 (talk • contribs) 09:34, March 2, 2007

I have added some comments on design evolution (see below). Re. VL Sea Wolf, the original concept appears to have incorporated a single 'six-pack' launcher for conventional (not VL) Sea Wolf - the GWS 25 system as fitted to the Type 22s rather than the GWS 26 VL system.

In the aftermath of the Falklands War, in which Sea Wolf performed well, some effort was devoted to the development of a light-weight, bolt-on variant, which could be retrofitted to warships and, in time of war, even supplied to merchant ships. This variant may at some stage have been considered for the Type 23.

Early design studies showed an OTO-Melara 76 mm gun rather than the 4.5" (114m) unit eventually fitted. The design process is discussed at length in Royal Navy Frigates since 1945, Second Edition, by Leo Marriott (London, 1990, ISBN 0 7110 1915 0). --Vvmodel (talk) 12:01, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Design evolution - from utility to general-purpose frigate
One of the initial objectives of the Type 23 programme was to produce a ship which was far cheaper than the contemporary Type 22. The unit price target was £70m, about 45% lower than the unit cost of a Type 22.

The primary purpose of the new design would be the deployment of towed array sonar. The ship would carry a lightweight air defence missile system for self defence. The ship would have a flight deck and refuelling and repair facilities, but would have no hangar - each group of frigates would be accompanied by a new type of auxiliary providing hangarage and repair facilities for helicopters.

This concept appears to have been abandoned when it was realised that the high cost of the new auxiliary ships would cancel out any savings in the cost of the frigates. The auxiliaries would become high priority targets and would need complex and expensive self-defence weaponry and sensors. The original utility frigate concept was comparable to the cheap (but limited capability) Type 14 class of the 1950s.

By mid-1981, the design was emerging as a 2,500 tonne, 100 metre, CODLAG-powered ship using a single Spey turbine to drive two shafts. At this stage, it was envisaged that a 76mm OTO Melara gun would be fitted, together with Exocet MM40 surface-to-surface missiles and two STWS-2 torpedo launchers.

The design process appears to have moved away from this 'minimal frigate' concept before the Falklands War of 1982. The design was lengthened by 15m and a hangar (large enough to accommodate a Sea King or Merlin) was added. The second Spey gas turbine was reinstated in the design at this time.

The main post-Falklands changes reflected key lessons learned in that conflict. A 4.5" (114m) gun was included, primarily to provide NGS (naval gunfire support for land forces). There was a heightened emphasis on damage control including enhanced interior subdivision and the replication of controls. --Vvmodel (talk) 11:55, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

CIWS
I believe the CIWs no longer exists on these ships. According to British Warships and Auxiliaries 2010 by Steve Bush and Warships guide to the RN, 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.2.49.234 (talk) 21:05, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm also pretty sure these ships have no CIWS, since that role is fulfilled by Sea Wolf. The specific page for each of the ships in this class states 2 CIWS in the armament section. This should therefore be removed. CrackDragon (talk) 02:22, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The CIWS on these ships is and always has been Seawolf. The ships also have two 30mm guns, but the 30mm guns are not CIWS like Goalkeeper or Vulcan.--Toddy1 (talk) 06:36, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Dukedom
The sentence "The ships are named after British Dukes" is wrong. They are clearly named after the Dukedom or Duchy (the territory 'ruled' by a duke) rather than Dukes themselves. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.86.117.208 (talk) 14:47, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page
Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:


 * http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/hms-iron-duke-type-23-frigate-royal-navy/
 * Triggered by  on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.— cyberbot II NotifyOnline 12:42, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

✅ This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag, if not already done. No further action is necessary.— cyberbot II NotifyOnline 19:18, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Type 23 frigate. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120606141105/http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/server/show/ConWebDoc.13459/changeNav/6568 to http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/server/show/ConWebDoc.13459/changeNav/6568

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 19:47, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Propulsion
Infobox:

4 x 1,510 kW (2,025 shp) Paxman Valenta 12CM diesel generators

2 x GEC electric motors delivering 2,980 kW (4,000 shp)

2 x Rolls-Royce Marine Spey SM1C delivering 23,190 kW (31,100 shp)

I think the middle ones, the electric motors deliver 2,980 kW EACH or? It makes sense, since 2,980 kW would be very very slow for such a ship and the diesel generators which produce the energy for the Diesel-Electric-Propulsion are producing 6,040 kW together! The electric motors would use 5,960 out of these 6,040 kW. Makes sense or?! Still not sooo much compared to the Marine Spey gas turbines, but for low cruise speed every kW propulsion counts and 5,960 kW electric is good since electric motors are very effective, just the system is a bit more expensive (Diesel generators and electric motors have to be paid instead of Diesel generators only). Maybe this should be changed into each?

However the (now) German part of Rolls Royce Power Systems will soon bring a more modern propulsion system, Diesel generators will be much more effective, reducing costs for fuel since the Royal Navy does not have the money to build 12 new frigates... and I correct it in the article, there is only 1 type offered of this gas turbine, but here is a wrong amount of kW or horsepower for the Marine Spey. If it happens (the upgrade of the 12 ships) I will change it in the article...

The Royal Navy’s Type 23 frigates will be equipped with four new MTU 12V 4000 M53B diesel gensets. Contract for 48 MTU diesel gensets worth approximately €90 million. First use of MTU propulsion with the Royal Navy for combat ships

Rolls-Royce is to supply a total of 48 MTU diesel gensets, worth approximately €90 million, for 12 Duke-class (Type 23) frigates used by the UK’s Royal Navy. The vessels were built between 1985 and 2002 and each will be equipped with four new MTU 12V 4000 M53B diesel gensets, as part of the Royal Navy’s vessel life extension program.

The diesel gensets, which each deliver 1,650 kW, will be delivered from late 2016. Once the new engines are in place, Rolls-Royce will be responsible for the total power output of the Duke-class frigates. The propulsion system will comprise Rolls-Royce Spey SM1A or SM1C gas turbines with the MTU diesel gensets, enabling the vessels to accelerate to up to 28 knots.

Greetings Kilon22 (talk) 04:52, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Ships of the Class Table
Some questions arise from the table- Why did the pennant numbers jump from F239 to F80? The table is ordered by dates with the ships, the pennent number is out of order- Why? Wfoj3 (talk) 20:02, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Which Type 23s have Artisan & Sea Ceptor and which don't?
Could someone please add a list to the article showing which T23s have Artisan & Sea Ceptor and which don't? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.25.65.59 (talk) 21:52, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Anti-ship warfare (missiles) Section
A minor thing but the article seems to be inconsistent with the second bullet point in this section.

"Up to one embarked Agusta Westland AW159 Wildcat helicopter potentially equipped with Martlet anti-ship missiles (as of 2021) or Sea Venom anti-ship missiles (projected from 2026)."

The projected date used for Sea Venom is the full operating capability date but the date used for Martlet is the initial operating capability date. In reality the Sea Venom also hit IOC in 2021 and is currently being deployed and the projected FOC date for Martlet is 2025 (https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/martlet-achieves-progress-in-operating-capabilities/).

We should pick either the IOC or the FOC date and be consistent (I would suggest IOC as it is more representative of the current capability of the overall platform). Darragh Broadbent (talk) 10:52, 28 January 2024 (UTC)