Wars and ConflictsΒ permalink
Worst weapon system?
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Β
Posted by RedGuzzi750 (U7604797) on Thursday, 9th October 2008
Reading a very good book at present about atomic weapons which has a bit about the bizzare Violet Club warhead used by the UK in the late 50s. Huge amount of troubles with this 400kt substitute for a H-bomb; it was filled with ball bearings to stop a disaster should it explode at the wrong time, but the bearings froze or rusted in place, the bag they were in rotted, and it took a minimum of 30 minutes to empty the bomb (and thereby fully arm it), yet the V bombers could get away in minutes...could not be stored empty of bearings as it was liable to be "unstable". Oh yeah and the explosive lenses were prone to cracking, AND it had to be serviced all the time by AWRE staff to keep it capable of working properly.
My nimination for worst ever - only 5 or so were built.
Whats your nomination? -
Message 2
Posted by VF (U5759986) on Thursday, 9th October 2008
In no particular order
i)Blackburn Botha an Roc,the latter had the flying capabilities of a rock.....
ii)The French predreadnoughts "Hoche" or "Magenta".Massively overweight,their armour ended up submerged and they had a mass of unarmoured superstructure that led "Hoche" to be described as "a whale with a load of workmans huts on the top of it".
iii)Ok it was a prototype but the TOG I/II,what a monstrosity
iv) Professor Lindermanns AA rockets,claim to fame,erm they were mounted on HMS Hood I believe.
Just a few....
Vf -
Message 3
Posted by RedGuzzi750 (U7604797) on Thursday, 9th October 2008
I'm a bit of an A-bomb nerd...but you cant go past;
The sticky bomb
Italian tanks in WW2
The K Class of steam powered submarines.. -
Message 4
Posted by RedGuzzi750 (U7604797) on Thursday, 9th October 2008
Forgot to say VF those choices were very good - those french dreadnoughts didn't look safe if they were on a lake let alone the ocean. And rockets that go up and hit nothing come down....
What about the Furious and the Glorious? -
Message 5
Posted by stalteriisok (U3212540) on Thursday, 9th October 2008
what about the rapier system in the falklands
remember in the news broadcasts the diagrams about the missile curtain that would protect the landing force
rapier was going to make it impenetrable (sp)
NOT QUITE
ST -
Message 6
Posted by VF (U5759986) on Thursday, 9th October 2008
What about the Furious and the Glorious?Β
As built? complete waste of time money and steel.....
However,as carriers they were successful and much better than HMS Eagle,Hermes or Argus.Ok HMS Courageous and Glorious didnt exactly have long wartime careers,but they were lost to incompetence by the RN,rather than actual desgn flaws.HMS Furious,the most outrageous
of the three with her 18 inch gun had a long successful career involving "Operation Tungsten" before meeting her maker in 1948.
For that reason I dont think that you could include them.
The "K" class is a good nomination,"too many damned holes" is apparently the comment of one old WW1 seadog put it,and were more of a danger to themselves than to the enemy.Likewise their half sisters the "M" class.
Whilst on submarines ,the british X1 I think certainly deserves thought.She has the only dubious honour ? of being the only major RN ship designed after WW1 but scrapped before WW2 indeed her service life was only 11 years.....
Regards
Vf -
Message 7
Posted by VF (U5759986) on Thursday, 9th October 2008
<quote>rapier was going to make it impenetrable (sp)<quote>
Ah yes,then you have Sea Dart which couldnt engage low level targets,Seawolf whose computer on several occassions threw its "toys out of the pram" with multiple targets,"Seaslug" which was used at the Falklands as a barrage (due to its booster rockets deploying on launch) rather than the hope of it actually hitting anything and the MK8 4.5 which had a nasty habit of jamming its breech.
Just goes to show the skill and bravery of the men who fought in the South Atlantic that the UK won at all.
VF -
Message 8
Posted by George1507 (U2607963) on Friday, 10th October 2008
The F104 Starfighter.
Also called the Widow Maker and the Aluminium Death Tube, it was extremely difficult to fly and had an unenviable reputation of being more dangerous to the pilot that the adversary.
The West German government bought hundreds from Lockheed, and something like 80 pilots were killed in them, usually on landing.
When I was a kid in the 1960s there seemed to be very short article in the paper every week saying that another had crashed and that the pilot was killed. -
Message 9
Posted by JB (U11805502) on Friday, 10th October 2008
You might add the USAAF's NorDam bomb-sight which could famously put a bomb into a pickle barrel from 10,000 feet. They knew this because they tested it in the Nevada and New Mexico desert, in zero wind and zero cloud, conditions which were surprisingly found to be absent in Yrp.
-
Message 10
Posted by Backtothedarkplace (U2955180) on Friday, 10th October 2008
Post Falklands when they got round to actually verifying what had brought down the most planes the answer turned out to be the 40/60 Bofors.
So they spent a lot of money on the missiles.
From what I can remember the problem with Seawolf wasnt so much the missle as the computer systems that had been written to operate it. They had been written on the assumption that the ship would be acting as an escort to a carrier battle group and refused to fire if there wasnt a target round to be defended.
It didnt recognise self defence as an option. Till the programs were re written they had to use 2 ships to patrol an area to give Sea Wolf something to defend. -
Message 11
Posted by White Camry (U2321601) on Friday, 10th October 2008
In WW2 the Japanese used weather-balloon bombs late in the war. Meant to strike at the enemy heartland
only one or two reached the US, landing in remote areas. The sole casualty was a passer-by who tried to pick it up, wondering what it was.
The Americans planned using "bat-bombs" where canisters parachuted over Japan would release bats with incendiary devices attached to them and spread fires all around. -
Message 12
Posted by VF (U5759986) on Friday, 10th October 2008
From what I can remember the problem with Seawolf wasnt so much the missle as the computer systems that had been written to operate it. They had been written on the assumption that the ship would be acting as an escort to a carrier battle group and refused to fire if there wasnt a target round to be defended.
It didnt recognise self defence as an option. Till the programs were re written they had to use 2 ships to patrol an area to give Sea Wolf something to defend.Β
Bttdp,
That was my impression,Im pretty sure that one on at least two occassions the system simply "shut down" as it couldnt deal with the information load.I pretty sure that happened to HMS Brilliant and she was very lucky to get away with superficial damage from the attacking fighters.I dont know if the RN was still suffering from a "Sandys Axe" hangover,that missiles were the way forward and as a result gun technology was neglected...
Would be interested in your opinion Bttdp
Vf -
Message 13
Posted by Grumpyfred (U2228930) on Friday, 10th October 2008
Post 82, all British warships have been issued with guns for defence. Whereas pre 82, the idea of guns on warships was seen as outdated.
-
Message 14
Posted by White Camry (U2321601) on Friday, 10th October 2008
Much like the 1950s USAF bomber-brained idiots (i.e., Curtis LeMay and friends) who decreed dogfights were obsolete, and that a fighter's proper role was to shoot down enemy bombers with air-to-air missles. Hence, no machine guns on the Phantom II.
Jump ahead to the '60s and Vietnam. Yes, the missiles worked fine (usually) but there were too many times where pilots got too close for missiles. Machine guns or cannons would have cut short a number of dogfights. -
Message 15
Posted by Brevabloke (U1685837) on Friday, 10th October 2008
There are some weapons that are rubbish as weapons but great as something else! The Bell P59 Airacomet was a poor attempt at a jet fighter, but was pretty easy to fly and forgiving, and introduced the USAAF to the jet fighter. Hundreds of pilots flew them as thier first jet in 45-46-47.
The R-7 missile was a hopeless ICBM, but a great space launcher. -
Message 16
Posted by U3280211 (U3280211) on Friday, 10th October 2008
Whats your nomination? Β
Darn, someone got to the "Flying Coffin" (F104) before me.
Then I'll go for the Boulton-Paul "Defiant".
A rare example of an aircraft whcih was designed by a committee and had to be flown/made effective in combat, by a committee.
With the predictable result... -
Message 17
Posted by VF (U5759986) on Friday, 10th October 2008
Then I'll go for the Boulton-Paul "Defiant".
A rare example of an aircraft whcih was designed by a committee and had to be flown/made effective in combat, by a committee.
With the predictable result...Β
Mmm,but to be fair it initially had some success before the Germans worked out the obvious flaw and it did ok(ish)as a nightfighter.
Vf -
Message 18
Posted by Mutatis_Mutandis (U8620894) on Friday, 10th October 2008
Much like the 1950s USAF bomber-brained idiots (i.e., Curtis LeMay and friends) who decreed dogfights were obsolete, and that a fighter's proper role was to shoot down enemy bombers with air-to-air missles. Hence, no machine guns on the Phantom II.Β
Put like that, it is a myth. It is correct that guns were not installed on the new interceptors. But these were designed to intercept bombers in an environment where enemy fighters were expected to be absent: Over the open sea (the F-4 Phantom II) or over the continental USA (F-89 Scorpion, F-102 Delta Dagger, F-106 Delta Dart).
The tactical fighters and fighter-bombers of the same period, which were designed to operate in an environment where enemy fighters would be present, did have internal guns: F-100 Super Sabre, F-101 Voodoo, F-104 Starfighter, F-105 Thunderchief, F8U Crusader, and a few others. The people who drew up specifications for these aircraft certainly did not believe that guns were obsolete. It is true that LeMay and friends did have no love for this category of aircraft, but there were still necessary.
It is also true that when the role of aircraft such as the F-4 and F-106 changed, and they started to fly in an environment where enemy fighters were present, they needed guns. So the decision now seems unwise.
But the interceptors of the 1950s were loaded with heavy, bulky and fragile electronics, and they could do without a big gun and all the vibration it would generate. And the 20-mm guns available for use on US fighters were deficient in destructive power if the target was an enemy bomber: Air forces that relied on guns to destroy bombers, such as the RAF, usually installed 30-mm guns. So at the time, the decision to omit guns seemed reasonable.
Incidentally, since the late 1930s fighters have been armed with automatic cannon, which are conceptually similar to machine guns, but fire much destructive ammunition. The effect of a 30-mm shell has no relation at all with the 'Top Gun' movie image of small holes being punched in metal sheet. -
Message 19
Posted by stalteriisok (U3212540) on Friday, 10th October 2008
PATRIOT
remember gw1 when we were led to believe it had 100% success - !!
so much so that when scuds hit Israel - to keep them out of the war patriots were deployed in tel aviv
we then found out they had something like 25% success rate - and scuds were still landing although it was kept secret at the time
quite good against Tornadoes though !!
re the falklands - apparently one of the reasons they now put guns on warships is for morale - when the argie attacks came in - the crews felt helpless - all they could go was see the woosh of missiles - and had no way o fighting back themselves
the marines in the end secured gpmgs to the railings so they could fight back - however slim the chance of hitting anything was
( was it the Great Escape where the pows were chastised for throwing rocks at low flying german aircraft lol)
st -
Message 20
Posted by JB (U11805502) on Friday, 10th October 2008
See also every British tank prior to the Centurion.
And let's not forget the Sten Gun ('Hey, let's make a sub-machine gun for three farthings out of bits of old water pipe!') -
Message 21
Posted by RedGuzzi750 (U7604797) on Friday, 10th October 2008
The Davy Crockett nuclear rifle....
-
Message 22
Posted by bemused_by_life (U10835985) on Friday, 10th October 2008
To throw in my tuppenceworth, how about the A7V Sturmpanzerwagen? Even in 1918 the idea of a tank that couldn't go off-road or see forwards must've seemed quite pointless? Although it wasn't quite as frankly rubbish as the 'Tsar tank' - two giant hampster wheels are not a good substitute for tracks...
-
Message 23
Posted by bemused_by_life (U10835985) on Friday, 10th October 2008
Just another thought...the Russian battleship Novgorod (launched 1873, decommissioned 1903, scrapped 1912)was perfectly circular, completely unmaneuvrable and had a distressing tendency to spin round and round on its axis whenever it fired it's guns. Brilliant idea, that....
-
Message 24
Posted by Grumpyfred (U2228930) on Saturday, 11th October 2008
To be fair, The Malitda was better armoured than most German tanks in 1939/40, and the Sten was available in great numbers when we needed it.it did work, could be produced by anybody with a workshop, and went down well with the resistance units.
-
Message 25
Posted by RyanO (U8918008) on Saturday, 11th October 2008
Poor bats, and the'yre mammels too. Those nasty Yanks
-
Message 26
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Saturday, 11th October 2008
One has to add up the patriot missile system as one of the worst: at least any other bad weaponry has still some utility, patriots have no utility at all. No wonder when extremely small and ridiculously weak countries buy the S300 USA gets all red and tears its clothes apart!
-
Message 27
Posted by Anglo-Norman (U1965016) on Saturday, 11th October 2008
Sat, 11 Oct 2008 15:59 GMT, in reply to E_Nikolaos_E in message 26
The rocket-powered Messerschmitt Me 163 Komet was a fast and deadly interceptor... provided it didn't blow up on take-off, or the pilot wasn't incinerated by the engines firing backwards... and lacking wheels it effectively had to be crash landed. Not one of Messerschmitt's finest creations, and may have killed more of its own pilots than Allied ones! -
Message 28
Posted by MB (U177470) on Saturday, 11th October 2008
To be fair to the Rapier it was being used in an way and environment that it had never been planned for.
-
Message 29
Posted by MB (U177470) on Saturday, 11th October 2008
I thought the Sea Dart was designed for high altitude targets? It kept the Argentinians low so vulnerable to other systems and also resulted in their problems with bombs that did not explode because of the low altitude they were dropped from.
-
Message 30
Posted by U3280211 (U3280211) on Saturday, 11th October 2008
The Me 163 Komet was certainly a dangerous beast but just think of the balls-up potential of behaviourist B.F. Skinner's "Project Pigeon"
During WWII, in the days before cheap computing, guiding a bomb to its target was a more miss than hit affair. While the military were working on their first crude electronic guidance systems, one famous psychologist, B.F. Skinner, had an unusual idea.
Skinner, who had been developing ways of training animals, thought that an expendable animal with excellent eyesight and high manoeuvrability could be trained to guide anti-aircraft missiles to their targets.(From Psy Blog)Β
Apparently they had to be very hungry and yet, well-rested, before their discriminatory powers were at full chat.
I think this might have been the precursor of the(possibly apocryphal) experiments using dolphins trained to recognise the sound of North Vietnamese fast craft. They were sent out with mines strapped to their heads to explode when they 'touched base' with the source of the right sound, for a food reward. Alas, they caused problems when they returned from unsuccessful missions, still "locked and loaded" -
Message 31
Posted by stalteriisok (U3212540) on Saturday, 11th October 2008
jmb
rapier and sea dart were meant to part of the missile umbrella to protect the fleet
before the war they seemed invincible
when it panned out in combat - they were crap
how did we win
st -
Message 32
Posted by RedGuzzi750 (U7604797) on Saturday, 11th October 2008
The Westland Wyvern was pretty terrible - the FAA should have bitten the bullet and bought Skyraiders. The Wyvern had a nasty tendency to flameout on a catapult launch....
-
Message 33
Posted by Triceratops (U3420301) on Sunday, 12th October 2008
The effect of a 30-mm shell has no relation at all with the 'Top Gun' movie image of small holes being punched in metal sheet.Β
That's the truth. Film of a test of a German 30mm round on a decommissioned Spitfire.The destructive effect is clear;
Combat gun camera footage,some are clearly missile kills,the others look like cannon fire from Mirages.
-
Message 34
Posted by Backtothedarkplace (U2955180) on Sunday, 12th October 2008
HiVF
Post falklands I was on an exercise where we were told that as a type 22 was off to port nothing could fly through that area!
Yep, some one hadnt read the papers or watched tv for a few weeks or spoken to any one who could have told them he was talking crap.
That was within six months? i think. after twelve months we were told to assume that missiles would only knock down a third of the aircraft in each wave. We wanted an eventually got lots more 23mm cannon but automating the loading of the 40mm would have been good fixing double mounts better. Devonport at one point was stuffed with old world war two quad 40mm mounts some of those wouldnt have gone amiss
If you look at the world war two ships everywere there is a flat peice of steel some one wleded on a gun. thats what we should have done.
I'm not a great fan of missiles -
Message 35
Posted by Mike Alexander (U1706714) on Monday, 13th October 2008
I've heard it claimed that the Patriot missile system failed to knock out a single Scud in the first Gulf War (despite media claims to the contrary at the time). Can anyone confirm or refute this?
-
Message 36
Posted by TrailApe (U1701496) on Monday, 13th October 2008
To be fair, The Malitda was better armoured than most German tanks in 1939/40Β
Comet was a very good tank, it saw service in the latter part of WW2.
Main problem with British AFV's in the first couple of years was the doctrine they operated under (a calvary mentality, no HE for the 2lber and limited HE ammo for the 6lber in the early stages) and the restrictions imposed by pre-war governments. As mentioned, the Matilda II was untouchable by any Axis tank early on and the Valentine tank was a good design - however both suffered from a small turret ring - an imposition which I think was something to do with the size of rail tunnels (although I could be way out on this one) - and could not be upgraded as could the PzIII and PzIV.
Mind you, from what I've read, your totally right about the 'cruiser' tanks, it was only with the appearance of the Cromwell that things started to look like they were coming together - although even this would have trouble with the Panthers and Tigers - but there again so did most allied tanks. -
Message 37
Posted by Backtothedarkplace (U2955180) on Monday, 13th October 2008
Re The matilda and valentine.
The turret ring was fixed by the hull size,
When it became apparant that the 2pdr wasnt adequate it wasnt just the turret that needed re deisgning you would have had to cutthe hull down the middle and drop in a 12 inch section to accomadate a bigger turret ring. if your going to do that then you might aswell have a new hull. if your going to do that then you might as well have a totally new design. -
Message 38
Posted by JB (U11805502) on Monday, 13th October 2008
Several Scuds aimed at Isreal were sucessfully engaged by Patriots, some of them on film.
The touble was, this was still an anti-aircraft missile. There is little or no point in using it against ballistic missile at low altitude since all you will do is either knock the missile off course or turn it into a shrapnel cloud that can kill over a wider footprint.
If the missile has a chemical warhead, as suspected, then engaging it at airburst altitude could easily make things worse. The same might be true for a simple or binary biological warhead. Only in the case of a nuclear warhead would you be likely to prevent detonation, but you would still run a high risk of deflagration of radioactive material.
Rather like the 'ack-ack' over London during the early Battle of Britain, the maion purpose was psycholigical reassurance of the civil population. The only Scud deaths in Israel were the result of elderly people, some of them Holocaust survivors, suffering panic-attacks and coronaries when wearing gas masks. -
Message 39
Posted by TimTrack (U1730472) on Monday, 13th October 2008
Mike Alexander "...I've heard it claimed that the Patriot missile system failed to knock out a single Scud in the first Gulf War (despite media claims to the contrary at the time). Can anyone confirm or refute this?..."
According to this link, your estimate may be out by, well, one. See link, with quote below.
However, I think that the term 'intercept' is the problem. A missile detonating close by could blow a Scud off course or cause it to fall, meaning it missed its original target. But becuase the Scud was itself imprecise, this was not necessarily a meaningful thing.
That is why the US military used their 'passing close by' definition. It might actually be impossible to tell if the flight of the Scud was actually affected.
That said, the actual military application of the Patriot does seem not to have matched the hype. Some, however, think that the deployment of the Patriot helped keep the Israelis out of the war because they felt protected, regardless of the reality.
From the link :"The Congressional Research Service, in a separate analysis of classified Pentagon data, concluded that most of the army's evidence was weak. Steven Hildreth ofthe CRS says that he is only convinced that one Patriot missile actually destroyed a Scud warhead." -
Message 40
Posted by Mike Alexander (U1706714) on Monday, 13th October 2008
The psychological impact of the Patriot is indisputable, particular with reference to pacifying the Israeli 'hawks' who might otherwise have urged retaliation, with the likely consequence of drawing more widespread support for Iraq across the Arab world. However, psychological effectiveness is not really relevant to the question of weapon effectiveness.
It's certain that Patriot, in the form it existed immediately prior to the first Gulf War, was completely ineffective due to a software error which caused the system clock to drift by about a twelfth of a second per day, unless the system was frequently rebooted. A twelfth of a second is an age in the context of attempting to detect and knock out high velocity missiles. This error was identified following the disaster at Dharhan when a Scud hit a US barracks killing 28 service personnel. The Patriot system in question had been running for over 4 days, with an accumulated clock error of a third of a second, equating to a position error of 600 metres. In the time between this disaster and the software upgrade, confusion about how frequently the system needed to be rebooted resulted in further failures.
There are claims that video evidence supports a hit rate of zero for Patriot in this conflict; however argument about what constitutes a 'hit' or 'interception' blurs the statistics somewhat.
I gather the system has been much improved and was highly successful during the more recent Iraq conflict - the only criticism resulting from three 'blue on blue' incidents where allied aircraft were incorrectly identified as enemy missiles. -
Message 41
Posted by Pugwash Trouserpress (U1865008) on Monday, 13th October 2008
I'm surprised there's been no mention of the system we had fitted on the Fearless 'down south'. The amazing Seacat.
We may as well thrown the bl**dy things at them.
Seawolf was a very new system at the time and, if memory serves, the 22's fitted with them still had Marconi technicians on board.
Seadart was designed for use against fairly distant targets and carried by the Type 42's.
As the Argies had bought a couple of these ships they knew the capabilities and weaknesses of them.
Peebs -
Message 42
Posted by TimTrack (U1730472) on Monday, 13th October 2008
Mike Alexander,
No dispute from me on that, but one question.
It concerns the wrongly identified friendly aircraft.
Would this have been brought about by the Patriot missile system, or somewhere beforehand, making it the fault of a different system ? -
Message 43
Posted by JB (U11805502) on Monday, 13th October 2008
Rather like the Patriot system clock, according to David Hart-Dyke captain of HMS Coventry, the Argentine-built Type 42 Santissima Trinidad had a slight warp in her hull that messed up the gyroscopes leaving her SeaDarts functionally useless and her 4.5 inch gun in permanent cow's backside & banjo mode.
-
Message 44
Posted by DL (U1683040) on Monday, 13th October 2008
I forget the exact designation of this one, but have to bring it up. One of the Soviet era armoured personnel carriers, I think it's the BRDM (but may be wrong). This was a lightly armoured, wheeled troop carrier, which looked fine on paper, but when it was used in anger, turned out to be a nightmare. This fine vehicle has to be worth a "Mention in Dispatches" for one of the worst ever.
You see, when they built it, they decided to put the main fuel tank in the DOOR. So, hit the door, boom, no one gets out...
Not exactly a good plan. -
Message 45
Posted by Brevabloke (U1685837) on Monday, 13th October 2008
Ah yes the BRDM - good if there isn't actually a fight going on! On tanks, I forgive the Germans for the A7V because it was such early days.
Latterly, what about the Sheridan?? Now that cost a LOT of money for not a lot. In fact what about the whole concept of light tanks??
Blackburn Firebrand = shocking. Ditto the Supermarine Swift... -
Message 46
Posted by Mike Alexander (U1706714) on Monday, 13th October 2008
Hi Tim, according to Wikipedia one incident was partly a result of disruption in communication between different Patriot units as they were moved to support the advance on Baghdad. Another factor was poor calibration (the parameters for identifying a certain type of missile were set too wide, causing a false positive result for a Tornado). Also the Tornado had its IFF transponder switched off. Another incident was the result of using a hastily deployed radar unit after the original one was attacked in error by an F-16.
-
Message 47
Posted by TimTrack (U1730472) on Monday, 13th October 2008
Mike,
OK.
In fact, I suspect that there is a link between all three failures. The battlefield is a fast moving place with human beings under intense pressure. The technology can be hugely complex.
High pressure, complexity and speed are poor bases for the desired accuracy.
If I remember correctly, one radar station was hit because it was broadcasting its own site as the target because of a simple data entry error. -
Message 48
Posted by stalteriisok (U3212540) on Monday, 13th October 2008
i am sure it was in gw2 that the patriot took out a single tornado approaching to land
the patriot crew let it loose as it was identifid as hostile
i remember at the time thinking that there should have been a common sense override button as in 2 gws - not one iraqui aircraft flew in combat - and certainly didnt make a hostile move
is this tooooo simplistic ??
st -
Message 49
Posted by VF (U5759986) on Monday, 13th October 2008
HiVF
Post falklands I was on an exercise where we were told that as a type 22 was off to port nothing could fly through that area!
Yep, some one hadnt read the papers or watched tv for a few weeks or spoken to any one who could have told them he was talking crap.
That was within six months? i think. after twelve months we were told to assume that missiles would only knock down a third of the aircraft in each wave. We wanted an eventually got lots more 23mm cannon but automating the loading of the 40mm would have been good fixing double mounts better. Devonport at one point was stuffed with old world war two quad 40mm mounts some of those wouldnt have gone amiss Β
Hi Bttdp
Ive got to be honest,as an enthusiast/somebody who has an interest in the the RN,rather than someboy who actually served in it,Ive never rated the Type 22 Batch I&II design.It seemed to lack that "a lot of bang for your bucks" quality and from what I can gather turned out to be vastly more expensive than originally thought.My understanding was that the original brief was for a replacement for the "Leander" and Type 12 classes(which in my humble opinion were fantastic ships),yet (probably not for the first time)the design and the weapons outfit/sensor package became more and more sophisticated and hence more expensive and complicated.
I can remember speaking to a chap who worked for Marconi and he commented that they were still trying to work the "bugs" out of the system in the early days.Its been a few years since Ive seen him but Im pretty sure that some of his comments were along the lines of "we had ideas of what we wanted the system to do,but not the physical technology to achieve it,wether thats a comment on the processing power/memory capability of the computers of the time I would bow to others greater knowledge without comment but it would make sense I suppose.
I dont think I could go so far as to say that the Batch 22 were the worst post war RN frigates ( Id suggest that the Type 21 "Amazon" class or the "Blackwood" class would earn that honour)But I would suggest that the initial two batches were "disapointing".The batch III ships for me were the design that the Type 22's should have been in the first place,and its interesting that (so far) they seem to avoided the fate of being put in "a state of readiness" or sold( MOD version - decommissioned and towed up Fareham Creek, highly unlikely to sail again if you read between the lines 
) that some of the other units have (thinking Type 23 units)
have suffered.
Regards VF -
Message 50
Posted by Backtothedarkplace (U2955180) on Tuesday, 14th October 2008
HiVF
one of the things that was very apparant after the Falklands was that the older destroyers and frigates designed in the fifties often by people who had direct experiance of world war two survived battle damage a lot better than the more modern destroyers.
The amazon and her class were beautiful ships to look at and one of the first ships to be designed to make the life of her crew as easy as possible. formica bulkheads etc But all you had to do was light a match up wind and they burned or the frames got knocked out of line by near misses.
These days they seem to have gone back to more solid designs but you need a war every now and then to confirm that and i dont think we can afford one right now.
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or Β to take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ iD
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ navigation
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ links
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ Β© 2014 The Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.