Who designed the Type 42?

boulton
20th August 2007, 20:24
“Warships International Fleet Review” August 2007 edition, states that Yarrow (under its various corporate names),

“In late 1983 was given the green light to proceed with detailed design and production drawings for the Type 23” (page 19), and that,

“It was proposed BAE Systems (i.e. Yarrow), and VT Shipbuilding, would share the design and assembly of the Type 45” (page 20).

Both these modern ships appear to be competent and efficient designs, the Type 45 startlingly so.

However, it is suggested, both these later designs lack the classic elegance possessed by the Type 42 (Batch 1 & 2), and the shear beauty of the “stretched” Type 42 (Batch 3).

Such is my admiration of these ships that I have been exploring alternative (civilian) means of remunerative employment to keep the Type 42 (Batch 1 & 2) ships at sea, after the RN has finished with them.

Can anyone advise who was responsible for the “detailed design and production drawings” for the Type 42?

melliget
21st August 2007, 01:36
Vickers Ltd. Shipbuilding Group? You might be interested in this 1968 article from The Times:
http://tinyurl.com/2bokef

Also, if you plug Type 42 into the Catalogue search of the National Archives, it brings up 25 results for Admiralty records and 5 for MOD:
http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/catalogue/search.asp

regards,
Martin

boulton
21st August 2007, 13:57
Big thanks Martin, I will explore straight away. Cheers, Andrew J Boulton.

vectiscol
21st August 2007, 23:02
In 1969-70 I worked on the first of the class, HMS Sheffield (which was sunk in the Falklands War) whilst I was an apprentice ship draughtsman at Vickers at Barrow-in-Furness. If memory serves correctly, she was the first all-metric ship for the Royal Navy.

STRAWBERRY
25th August 2007, 18:29
I think his name was "Henry Richard Type 42" It's a coincidence that his name turned out to be the same as the ships! Har Har

boulton
26th August 2007, 14:25
Martin's lead to "The TIMES" provides a trip down memory lane, http://tinyurl.com/2bokef.

The article specifically states "the Navy intends to make living conditions as desirable as possible by exploring through the Council of Industrial Design, improvements to mess decks in keeping with similar accommodation on merchant ships". With no personal experience of a Type 42, I have only recent articles on its replacement the Type 45, which - with the benefit of hind-sight - indicate a possible "breakdown of communication" between the Navy, the Council of Industrial Design, and/or merchant shipping standards !!

The article omitts to mention "Vectiscol", and the his role in the design and construction of the Type 42. Browsing my obligitory bed-side reading "The ROYAL NAVY - SHIPS AIRCRAFT & MISSILES" (CP39) dated July 1988 (page 10), it states "This class (the Type 22 frigate) is the first to be designed to the metric system in the Royal Navy".

I eventually made (some) sense of,
http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/catalogue/search.asp.

Unfortunately the Type 42 outline drawings (at £8-50), are too large to be scanned and sent by e-Mail, within 24 hours. I have yet to order a "hard copy" throught the post. But, it sounds as though this might be an invaluable source of information for model makers (and, the answer to some of the questions I have been asking for the past few months).

Again, thank you, Martin and Vectiscol. Andrew J Boulton.

melliget
29th August 2007, 00:13
Good luck with the drawings, Andrew. Hopefully they will be worth the outlay. As long as you've got your wallet out, there is a book called simply "Type 42", by Leo Marriott, published Ian Allen, London, 1985. According to the description on one of the five slightly expensive copies available via Bookfinder (http://www.bookfinder.com):

"Looks at a class of destroyer that has seen extensive worldwide service with the Royal Navy and the Argentine Navy. Details the origins, construction, weapons, machinery, sensorts and histories of the ships, including a consideration of the influence of the Argentine units on the Falklands War. Over 120 b&w photos and line drawings supplement text."

On the other hand, you might get lucky and find it at your library.

Martin

Macca
7th September 2007, 03:58
I know there used to be a copy in the Plymstock Library in Plymouth. Not sure if that is close to you though.

boulton
7th September 2007, 23:27
Did as I was advised by Martin, and obtained a copy of the book called simply "Type 42", by Leo Marriott, published Ian Allen, London, 1985. Such is my interest, I did not consider the £32-00 excessive. There was a second copy in better condition listed for £40-00 plus, if any one else is so inclined.

Published in 1985, the book only mentions the last three "Batch 3" ships as having ". . been launched and are being fitted out".

At that time none of them included the now "de rigour" fully automated 2 x PHALANX, but instead a miscellany of:

- Oerlikon/BMARC GCM-A03 twin 30mm (manual) mounting,
- Oerlikon/BMARC GAM-B01 single 20mm (manual) mounting, and
- Oerlikon single 20mm (very manual) dating from WW2.

melliget
8th September 2007, 10:42
Glad you managed to get a copy of that book.

Regarding armament, Coventry had:

1 x 4.5-inch Mk 8 gun
2 x 20mm Oerlikon guns
1 x Sea Dart system
2 x triple torpedo tubes

Wonder how she would have fared 25 May 1982 if she had had Phalanx. Her port Oerlikon jammed during that last fateful attack.

regards,
Martin

HarbourCam
10th September 2007, 15:24
I believe the Phalanx systems were installed as a direct result of happenings in the Falklands. Before that the space(s) were used to carry 27' Whaler sailing / pulling boats!

R736476
12th September 2007, 18:44
The Type 42 was a Ship Department, Foxhill, Bath design.
Vickers Barrow built the first of class, Sheffield and produced the detailed construction drawings. Builders of the follow on Type 42s learned to overcome the deficiencies in the aforesaid drawings.

R736476
12th September 2007, 18:55
In 1969-70 I worked on the first of the class, HMS Sheffield (which was sunk in the Falklands War) whilst I was an apprentice ship draughtsman at Vickers at Barrow-in-Furness. If memory serves correctly, she was the first all-metric ship for the Royal Navy.

The Type 42s were designed and built in Imperial units. This led to problems in some shipyards such as Vosper Thornycroft, Woolston, who were well versed in metric units from building the Brazilian Mk10 frigates and who then had to regress to imperial on HMS Southampton - a new generation of apprentices had come through and to whom feet and inches were a foreign language e.g. 17 inches = 1ft 7ins.

vectiscol
17th September 2007, 21:25
You may be correct, R736476. I don't have any old drawings to check my memory, but I do recall the pain at that time of also having to change from Imperial to Metric units during HNC at Barrow Technical College. Some time after finishing my apprenticeship, I went to work on the Clyde, and found it a nuisance, too, to have to revert to feet and inches.

Vickers did hire quite a few subcontract draughtsmen to work on the Type 42 project; they had the plum jobs and we 'locals' were shunted on to minor drawings, or were kept on submarines. In actual fact, most of my work on "Sheffield" was done out in the shipyard during our year of practical training.

Perhaps the metric drawings that I remember were those of the two Iranian Navy Mk.5's, "Zaal" and "Rostam" that were subcontracted to Vickers from Vosper Thorneycroft. Can you remember these ships?

markwarner
18th September 2007, 13:03
You may be correct, R736476. I don't have any old drawings to check my memory, but I do recall the pain at that time of also having to change from Imperial to Metric units during HNC at Barrow Technical College. Some time after finishing my apprenticeship, I went to work on the Clyde, and found it a nuisance, too, to have to revert to feet and inches.

Vickers did hire quite a few subcontract draughtsmen to work on the Type 42 project; they had the plum jobs and we 'locals' were shunted on to minor drawings, or were kept on submarines. In actual fact, most of my work on "Sheffield" was done out in the shipyard during our year of practical training.

Perhaps the metric drawings that I remember were those of the two Iranian Navy Mk.5's, "Zaal" and "Rostam" that were subcontracted to Vickers from Vosper Thorneycroft. Can you remember these ships?

Don't know about the Iranian ships but I served on the 'Sheff' and she certainly wasn't metric. neither were any of the other three T42's I served on, I think the point made earlier about the T22's being the first metric ships is about right but i don't know if that started with Broadsword or one of the later ones.

R736476
18th September 2007, 17:03
[QUOTE=vectiscol;151811]
Perhaps the metric drawings that I remember were those of the two Iranian Navy Mk.5's, "Zaal" and "Rostam" that were subcontracted to Vickers from Vosper Thorneycroft. Can you remember these ships?[/QUOT

Don't know about the Mk.5's they were a bit before my overseeing days at Woolston! The first Mk.5's were laid down in 1967, don't know if the remaining three are still in service (were still in the 2003/4 Janes). FARAMARZ was sunk by the Yanks in 1988 when they were sponsoring S. Hussein.
Regards,
Alex

boulton
20th September 2007, 12:20
The Type 42 was a Ship Department, Foxhill, Bath design.
Vickers Barrow built the first of class, Sheffield and produced the detailed construction drawings. Builders of the follow on Type 42s learned to overcome the deficiencies in the aforesaid drawings.

My new "Bible" (a copy of the book called simply "Type 42", by Leo Marriott, published Ian Allen, London, 1985), confirms that,

"At an Admiralty Board meeting held in May 1967 to consider the excessive cost of the Design Group study, M.K.Purvis RCNC (who at that time was in charge of frigate and destroyer design) demanded the opportunity to produce a more economic design which would remain inside the stipulated £11million target".

And that,

"Detailed design progressed under J.C.Lawrence RCNC, who becameType 42 project leader".

I can not recommend enough this book. I could quote any paragraph or sentence and they would be of interest, but will restrict myself to just two more!

"For a start, design standards and structure loadings were to be based on the later "Leander" class frigates and, more seriously, no margins of weignt or space were to be allowed for future modernisations which meant that new weapon systems could not be installed (internally) at a later date when they became available". This obviously did not prohibit the installation of Phalanx which is of course a self-contained "bolted-on" system above deck, with no requirements below decks.

"Internally, spacesaving arrangements included a common galley for officers and men (an egalitarian feature which must have appealed to the socialist government of the day) and a single combined workshop for all services".

markwarner
20th September 2007, 15:44
Boulton

I have the same book. It was interesting to see the bit on a single workshop for all services, good theory but that's not how the ships operate. There is still an electrical workshop, a radio type workshop, an engineering workshop and a shipwrights shop.

boulton
21st September 2007, 00:48
However, it is suggested, both these later designs (Type 23 and Type 45), lack the classic elegance possessed by the Type 42 (Batch 1 & 2), and the shear beauty of the “stretched” Type 42 (Batch 3).


Whilst not sure if it is appropriate to quote oneself, I was pleased to read in my copy of the authoritative book called simply "Type 42", by Leo Marriott, published Ian Allen, London, 1985, that the author shares my opinion of these ships:

“There is no doubt that the Type 42 destroyer presents a well-balanced and pleasing appearance and it must rank as one of the best looking classes of ship to enter service with the Royal Navy” (Chapter 3, page 27).

R736476
21st September 2007, 01:21
However, it is suggested, both these later designs lack the classic elegance possessed by the Type 42 (Batch 1 & 2), and the shear beauty of the “stretched” Type 42 (Batch 3).

I was surprised that the reference was to the Type 42, never saw them as elegant; had it been referring to the Type 22 then I would have understood.
Unfortunately the stretched Type 42 (Batch 3) came at a hefty price due to its structural deficiencies which required the addition of the box section to the shearstrake.

markwarner
21st September 2007, 14:04
I'd agree that the Batch 3's look good but the Batch 1's and 2's are squat and business like rather than classic.

The best looking modern era RN ships are the Gun Leanders and the Batch 3 T22's, closely followed by the County Class GMD's, all great designs which leave the T42's behind.

Stevo
21st September 2007, 22:59
Are we talking about good looking ship designs or all round quality? If so then the Counties were a good looking ship but had serious faults in terms of man power intensive and an obsolete Sea Slug system which took up huge amounts of space.

For looks, the sporty Type 21 Amazon's are hard to beat, but for all round good design look no further then the Sea Wolf converted Leanders.

What of the biggest stinkers? HMS Mermaid, the Cathedral/Captain Class frigates or maybe the Amazon's.

markwarner
24th September 2007, 14:08
Are we talking about good looking ship designs or all round quality? If so then the Counties were a good looking ship but had serious faults in terms of man power intensive and an obsolete Sea Slug system which took up huge amounts of space.

For looks, the sporty Type 21 Amazon's are hard to beat, but for all round good design look no further then the Sea Wolf converted Leanders.

What of the biggest stinkers? HMS Mermaid, the Cathedral/Captain Class frigates or maybe the Amazon's.


HMS Ocean.

Hawkeye
27th September 2007, 01:18
For those who may not know, there is an article in this months Ships Monthly about the Type 42 Destroyers.

boulton
19th March 2008, 14:22
Recently received: . . . . . . . . NOTICE TO TENDERERS . . . . . . Date:13 March 2008

INVITATION TO TENDER NO 2008/01887 - SALE OF TYPE 42 DESTROYERS (EX-HMS CARDIFF, GLASGOW, NEWCASTLE)

1.The Secretary of State for Defence, invites inspection of the under mentioned vessels with the option of submitting a bid for their purchase. The vessels are to be sold by Competitive Tender, on an “as seen as lying” basis, as a package of three for recycling within the Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD) and in full compliance with the principles of the Basel Convention and all other associated EU & UK legislation including Waste Shipments Regulation (Council Regulation 259/93). Alternatively, they may be purchased individually for re-use/refurbishment for non-warlike purposes, providing the Purchaser can satisfy the Authority that appropriate safeguards are in place governing final disposal.

AlacrityF174
26th April 2010, 17:23
Are we talking about good looking ship designs or all round quality? If so then the Counties were a good looking ship but had serious faults in terms of man power intensive and an obsolete Sea Slug system which took up huge amounts of space.

For looks, the sporty Type 21 Amazon's are hard to beat, but for all round good design look no further then the Sea Wolf converted Leanders.

What of the biggest stinkers? HMS Mermaid, the Cathedral/Captain Class frigates or maybe the Amazon's.

The best looking ships the RN ever had was the Type 21's, classic look, sleek and beautiful to behold. As for Type 22's and 42's not sure where anybody gets the idea they were/are nice looking but each to his own I suppose.(Thumb)

Satanic Mechanic
26th April 2010, 18:50
In terms of good looking navy ships I have a real soft spot for the Type 21's and almost anything the French build. I am sure there must be a clause in their spec that says something like:

3.1 It must look Sexy

RFA Colin
30th May 2010, 13:01
The batch 1 & 2 type 42's were an awful design. They were terrible seakeeping vessels that appeared to hit a wave and shudder throughout, rather than cutting through the waves/sea's. A similie would be like a car ploughing through some kind of a brick wall.

Internally they were no better either. Very, very cramped living conditions.

21's were stunning looking ships.

vectiscol
30th May 2010, 19:31
I thought that the Type 42's were a clumsy and messy design even when they were built. I fabricated the cant frames around Sheffield's transom, which is why she proved so difficult to sink during the Falkland's War. Having also done the launching calculations for INS Zaal, and an inclining experiment on her sister, Rostam, I much preferred the racy looks of the Vosper products.

NickNZ
31st May 2010, 06:40
Type 21s, I'm surprised they didn't come in a convertible version. Like a true sportscar, they would be the one to go out in on a Sunday. They just had IT (you know, that French....thing)