Type 42 Batch 3 Destroyers

Lindsay Bremner
22nd January 2007, 20:24
I recently purchased a commissioning book from HMS Gloucester. The picture on the front cover shows her without the hull lateral strengthening beam. I have a couple of questions as a result of said purchase.

1. Does anybody know when they fitted the beams?
2. What happened in order for them to need to be fitted?
i.e. were they unstable etc.

Regards
Lindsay

Jim S
22nd January 2007, 21:56
The Type 42 Batch 3 were longer by 14 metres than the earlier batches to incorporate more warfare goodies, greater speed (up from 28 to 29.5 kts) and better sea keeping qualities and included a different bow. The lengthening of the hull required to be compensated by the longitudinal beams referred to.
I don't think there were any stability issues I don't know when the beams were fitted but a photo of Manchester in early 1988 shows her also without.

fred henderson
22nd January 2007, 23:07
The original Type 42s were built to a restricted hull length because the MoD stupidly thought that would significantly reduce their price. The construction of the Batch 3 Type 42s was delayed in an attempt to overcome the serious weapon system and seakeeping shortcomings of the original design that were exposed during the Falklands campaign. The remedial work involved lengthening the hull by 16 metres forward of the bridge. In service it was found that this created structural problems and strengthening beams were fitted during later refits to prevent them breaking-up in a heavy sea, like a certain container ship in the news at the moment.
The beams add 50 tons to the displacement and 2 feet to the beam of the ships.

Fred

Lindsay Bremner
23rd January 2007, 07:42
Thanks for that lads.

Regards
Lindsay

cockerhoop
5th February 2007, 12:43
the batch 3 were on the drawing board long before the falklands, i did sea trials on the lead ship manchester july 1982 just a month after the falklands war,
but i agree the batch 3 was what the navy originally wanted
Edinburgh is the oddball of the fleet, she has a fairing on her bow that was added around 1990 when she had a close in weapons system aft her 4.5" gun, rather than 1 eather side as the other 3 ships were fitted with.

fred henderson
5th February 2007, 13:39
Sorry Cockerhoop, the wording of my posting was somewhat ambiguous. Manchester was delivered in 1982, but the remaining three were not commissioned until 1985, because of the changes needed to overcome the deficiencies in the design that were exposed by the Falklands Campaign.

Fred

Stevo
5th February 2007, 18:00
Anyone know why the Birmingham had a blackened 'frame' around one of the centre bridge windows? No other class member had this.....

AlacrityF174
20th April 2010, 14:21
Lindsay

I too have the Commissioning book for D96 but got it the day we commissioned. Gloucester had the strengthening fitted at her first refit, as I remember we never had any problems with the extended bow section, but being a WE I never really had much to do with the clanky Hull dept. The BAtch 3's were by far superior to the 1's and 2's in seakeeping we also had the newest sensors fitted as standard, the fwd 909 always had "snags" though. Aft set was always best.

Jock3
20th April 2010, 23:52
Interesting that the T42's had a strengtening beam fitted in latter refits as the T22's are now following suit.
A photo of HMS Campbeltown emerging from her refit earlier this year @ Rosyth clearly shows the added beam in this photo http://maritimegallery.fotopic.net/p62975062.html

Macca
22nd April 2010, 03:38
A surprising addition to the type 22 after so many years? Is this strengthening or some kind of trial for a new vessel? looks bloody awfull in my my opinion! The only last good looking warships we have these days!

Jock3
23rd April 2010, 17:55
Just keeping old ships going