Type 22-class frigate | The costly experience of the Royal Navy

[@WeaponDetective]

Please click the link to watch our other Weapon Legends videos kzbin.info/aero/PLEMWqyRZP_Lq9j4Wz2QHo6dptTW3-tdIo Please click the link to watch our other British Systems videos kzbin.info/aero/PLEMWqyRZP_LrA_rFwr_1Gk4JBymGPNxSJ Please click the link to watch our other Weapon Legends-Sea videos kzbin.info/aero/PLEMWqyRZP_LqMGUzwZdeFlgQ9LHuY32ZX

[@petes8746]

I was lucky enough to have served on all Batches of these fine ships: HMS Brilliant, Sheffield, Campbeltown Chatham and Cumberland. The Batch 3's were superb ships, such a shame they weren't purchased by another nation instead of all being scrapped. Great video, brought back some very fond memories.

[@DonWan47]

Can we all agree on how great the name Brilliant is for a ship?

[@robby543212000]

Royal Nay and Royal Netherlands Navy did cooperate on this project, but I doubt the project failed on the Dutch demand that the ship's length would be limited to 112 meters, since their own frigates (Kortenaer class) had a length of 128 meters and the dry dock, than under construction, can accommodate ships up to 144 meters.

[@DonWan47]

Point well made, I agree.

[@ericyorke5673]

I served on HMS Broadsword, last deployment. 1994/5 on Wigs Patrol. (Even though we didn’t have a gun) It was in bad repair, genny’s failing, water rationing etc. We returned to Plymouth and a jetty full of new machinery to be fitted prior to handover to Brazil as the Greenhalgh. I stayed on as part of the Naval party training the Brazilian Navy.

[@clangerbasher]

B2 T22 was stretched for a reason you barely allude towards. The design was stretched to accommodate CLASSIC OUTBOARD AN/SSQ-108(V). The system used 24 deck antenna whose spacing required a longer hull. If there wasn't that need the RN would have probably looked for a cheaper design than T22. But T22 was extendable (we knew how to design ships back then), a known design and so more T22 were built. All the extra goodness like the Sea King capable aviation facilities and the far superior bow were just gravy. Great video BTW. As always from you.

[@bardslee]

My stepmum served on the HMS battle-axe during her deployment in the gulf war. She was the assistant radiographer (chief tea maker)

[@notshapedforsportivetricks2912]

Well, it was nice that they named the ship after her anyhow.

[@jester5ify]

Dont say 'the' HMS. There's no need.

[@AWMJoeyjoejoe]

Best warship name ever.

[@trentsteel4421]

@@notshapedforsportivetricks2912😂🤣😅

[@andyf4292]

@@AWMJoeyjoejoe nah, warspite and thunderchild are the best names!!

[@Crissy_the_wonder]

Great video as always. The Batch 3s are amongst the best looking ships of the type (not debating that)

[@cathybrind2381]

The Batch 3 ships, not the earlier stubby ones.

[@thedocslab]

Appreciate the amount of effort and research you put into your videos,😎

[@MrLorenzovanmatterho]

She was our girl, she was a godsend in the Falklands! We loved her and she was our whole world. Heart of oaks, our are ships...!

[@martinnuman1097]

These are so well made. If the narrative is talking about a Chilean type22 then we see a Chilean frigate with a Chilean flag, not stock footage of a random ship.

[@paulc9588]

A great video as always. The T22 and Hunt class MCMVs were by far the best ships to emerge from the fallout of the 1966 Defence Review, the others (Invincible class, T42 and T21) being compromised and/or austerity designs. A shame the T22s did not serve the RN for longer, but the service can consider itself extremely fortunate that 14 were eventually built. Without the Falklands conflict, the 7th and 8th ships would almost almost certainly have been the last.

[@habahan4257]

Nice video. Keep it up

[@TREVORALLMAN]

I had a brother who was part of the first ship's company of HMS Broadsword. He also served on HMS Battleaxe, as well as HMS Charybdis that appeared in the video.

[@passepathe8943]

Did he ever manage to get a call through to Danny Boy…?

[@janwitts2688]

Batch 2 also had an improved bow

[@ClayinSWVA]

Good for people to make these videos talking about less successful designs of the Cold War as we are designing new frigates today. Also, 285 people was a lot of manpower for a frigate, that is not a lot less than a destroyer’s manning.

[@DavidSmith-cx8dg]

London and Coventry were nice ships . Plenty of space , and still in service with Rumania as Regale Ferdinand and Regina Maria . A fascinating project .

[@billballbuster7186]

Despite the lack of a gun the Type 22s performed very well especially the Seawolf missile system. During the Falkland War HMS Coventry was hit because she turned sharply in front of HMS Broadsword putting her directly in front of the Seawolf missile launcher. Coventry was hit by 3 bomb sand later sank. But Coventry downed all 4 x A-4 Skyhawks in the firtt attack minutes before. Broadsword went on the destroy an IAI Dagger and probably an A-4 Skyhawk.

[@gusgone4527]

The RN sailors turned these ships into superb fighting units. With very aggressive tactics.

[@patopato9668]

The duo Coventry/Broadsword was active 2 days before the attack on them, hitting 3 planes with sea darts missiles. Once argentine inteligence spot the possition launch an attack on them with 6 planes (3 + 3 = two "escuadrillas" with one leader and two wingmans each), 2 of them have to turn back, leaving the attack on 2 + 2 ( two "secciones" leader and one wingman each). First two go for the Broadsword, hitting engine room stopping the ship, and hitting the noise of the sea link, no bomb exploded in or on the ship (mk-17 1000lbs bombs). Second pair attack Coventry, 3 hits, 250lbs EXPAL (Explosivos Alaveses, an spanish bomb like mk-82), all tree exploded, Coventry make a "bell turn" (up side down) and sink in 25 minutes. Coventry launch blind a sea dart trying to scare/disrupt the attack, and both ships use cannon/machine guns. Sea Harrier cover was rejected 2 times to avoid get friendly fire. All attackers planes go back to base. There is a photo from a british marine from one of the ships, very famous, you can see the hits on the sea from the defenders and the two A-4s, the leader Captain Carballo on the left and his wingman Lt. Rinke on the right side, flying even lower than his friend.

[@jonny-b4954]

Yeah, NO warship should go to sea without at least a single gun. I mean, what do you do when the enemy is literally in sight otherwise? Missiles generally have a minimum stand off range.

[@billballbuster7186]

@@jonny-b4954 Similar thing happened in the 1960s with aircraft trading guns for missiles. But it didnt last long before guns were fitted again. You need guns on ships for shore bombardment and taking care of small boats you dont want to waste a Harpoon or Exocet on.

[@jonny-b4954]

@@billballbuster7186 Indeed. I think it was the F4 Skyhawk that got a lot of flak for having no gun? Just silly. I think most ships should actually have more guns. They're going to find in a real war scenario that missiles simply aren't a full replacement for rounds down range.

[@robertnemeth6248]

Great video could you do the Type 23 next....

[@WeaponDetective]

Wait for the Monday

[@guderian7795]

9:02 The Romanian frigates have space forward of the bridge that could accommodate a RAM launcher.

[@balaurizburatori8607]

Could, but won't, because the country's bankrupt due to all the populist measures, and defence is the last thing on politicians' mind.

[@UncleMisu]

They do but it will never happen. When we bought them they were supposed to be upgraded to modern standards but it fell through.. Now any modifications are pointless, the ships are outdated in every way and are now just alive so romania is not left almost completely without ships.. They needed to be replaced since we bought them but we haven't been able to do that yet since we have more important things we need to modernize

[@entropy_of_principles]

@@UncleMisu TRUE !...sad also, because of idiots with high level of corruption

[@SteveDennison-u7h]

It was nice to see Cherry B (F75) in the video..

[@Aren-1997]

Thats some great old footage you've dug up!

[@tetraxis3011]

“Lets design a ship without main guns, what could possibly go wro-“ The Scheeming Skyhawk:

[@georgebarnes8163]

stupid comment

[@Ushio01]

The batch 1 & 2 ships were cheap expendable ASW frigates no point putting too much on them as they were single mission ships designed to hunt the numerous Soviet subs. Multi-purpose means more expensive individual ships which means you can't risk losing them at sub hunting.

[@patrickpirzer4080]

The main gun is usually for surface targets. Not for intercepting aircrafts. But - well - in case of emergency you will get whatever you can.

[@dogsnads5634]

@@Ushio01 Batch 1 and 2 were not cheap....

[@Ushio01]

@ couple of hundred million each not the billion+ of other escorts or multi billion of modern escorts.

[@grahamkearnon6682]

What are you talking about, HMS Hermes an aircraft carrier from the 1950s was the 1982 flag ship for the Falklands War, her sister carrier HMS bulwark was around too. The type 22 frigates are much remembed, they were our 'Goal Keepers' ie always no more then 500ft from us, protecting us, like a collie darting around its flock.

[@clangerbasher]

And some matelots I know are still suffering from motion sickness...........

[@michaelgill5186]

My Favourite small warship Type 22 batch 3 .. guns cwis missiles helo ..full kit fabulous looking ship I think

[@jasonlee3218]

I worked on the Batch 3 class. We used to refer to them as luxury frigates, compared to the Skoda class (T23s) 😂

[@flym0]

The Batch 3s cost £250mn at the time whereas the T23s cost £50mn. Hence the T23s nickname.

[@DaveJMcGarry]

Got VERY drunk on a call round on Battleaxe stokers mess in '88. Happy days! 🤣

[@Sonofdonald2024]

HMS Brilliant was a pretty good TV series from early 90s following the crew of said type 22. Just had a look and someone has uploaded the series onto YT 😊

[@andyf4292]

I did hear that seawolf could shoot a 4 inch shell down, but not sure if thats propaganda or not

[@JamesWilliamson-w8y]

Built down to a price rather than up to a quality, so it got rubbish radar. Have a look at the export versions of the Type 21 to see what was available.

[@GarethFairclough]

Brazen? The mightyJingles was on her back during the Gulf war!

[@billywobbledagger-on9gl]

In 1987 Brazen's 2 helo's were the Brazen Hussy & Brazen Harlot. I was on in 1987 Op Armilla. Fun times, especially Mauritius!

[@flym0]

@@billywobbledagger-on9gl We (Broadsword) 'only' got Mombers.

[@UsuallyTrolling]

Maybe add additional background music next time? I love Heart of Oak but not 14 minutes of it😂🤣

[@bobbyrayofthefamilysmith24]

Great looking ship but poorly armed had no gun but not many missiles either. What's the point in designing large frigates and destroyers but not arming them?

[@trancamortal]

Necesitas una bufanda. Y ponerte la capucha, que quits mucho frío

[@diademadiademoni202]

Such a silly project, the worse by far in frigate category. No gun for a 4,000+ t frigate while Lupos at 2,200 tons had a 127 mm fully automatic, Knox idem, Type 21 a Mk 8 etc. The first batch cannot hold a VDS, the only weapon ASW were light torpedoes and a single (single?) Lynx even if the ship had a capacity to hold two (or so i've read). The Sea Wolf system was actually bulkier than the Sea Dart, so basically why not to use a sea version of the Rapier instead? Or buy more Type 42 with a CIWS system like Phalanx. The Type 22 batch 3 was finally a great frigate, but at almost 5,000 tons it was a lot bigger than a Type 42. Look to destroyers like C.Adams (USA) and Audace (Italy) for comparation. Hell, the T.22B3 was almost as big as a De la Penne destroyer! And the Sea Wolf range was no bigger than the one of the 114 mm!!! In Falklands war a british 114 was credited to the shooting down of an Exocet, so what's the point to have a so big and so short ranged missiles? It would have been better to make a Sea Rapier or a Sea Skyflash!

[@bobthebomb1596]

There was an option for a four missile Sea Wolf to replace Sea Cat, but it was never taken up. Sea Wolf was far superior to Rapier though.

[@diademadiademoni202]

@@bobthebomb1596 Well, not that superior, the range and speed are comparabile, but the Rapier is really a small thing compared to the S.W. For a self defence i'd prefer it, after all the Rapier replaced also the Tigercat. Or atleast, the 4-missile version of the SW.

[@bobthebomb1596]

@@diademadiademoni202 Later versions of the Sea Wolf were superior, with much higher kill probability.

[@diademadiademoni202]

@@bobthebomb1596 I'd prefer a sea Sky flash, atleast it had a 20 km range.

[@bobthebomb1596]

@@diademadiademoni202 Might as well fit Sea dart rather than develop a whole new missile system.

[@stephennelmes4557]

Had the Brave, batch 2 1987-1990. They were beautiful ships but criminally and suicidally under-armed.

[@bobbyrayofthefamilysmith24]

Like the crap Britain is building now. Big hull? no weapons, no offensive anti ship missiles.

[@chandrachurniyogi8394]

the Type 22 (Batch III) class 4,382 ton (5,063 ton loaded) guided missile frigate powered by iFuelCell® e-HYBRId™ M-HEP system . . . in the 1990s the Type 22 (Batch III) could have been upgraded with a 16-cell VLS built into the forward bow section of the main deck . . . in between the 83 MM Oto Melara main gun (positioned further up, far side of the bow) & frontal superstructure . . . a 30 MM Goalkeeper CIWS built on top of the aft superstructure . . . other upgrades on the Type 22 could incorporate a revised heli deck arrangement & larger hangar in the far aft stern section of the frigate . . . big enough to accommodate two ship-borne AW101 Merlin HM4 multi mission CSAR helos . . .

[@stephennelmes4557]

You've left your bulls*it filters open and transmitting when you should be EMCON silent.

[@andyf4292]

and thatchers defence review nearly got rid of the through deck cruisers ,, just before the falklands war.. one was to be sold to India, the other, scrapped... luckily the junta in Argentina jumped the gun

[@paultanton4307]

The sale of HMS Invincible was agreed by John Nott to Australia not India - Illustrious and Ark Royal were still in build ,you wouldn't scrap Ships that are still building ( Russia notwithstanding ).

[@bobbyrayofthefamilysmith24]

@@paultanton4307 the UK does that all the time they build expensive ships then sell them for 0.1% of the cost to foreign countries

[@paulc9588]

They were going to sell one (Invincible) to Australia. The 2nd and 3rd ships were still under construction in 1981. It was actually a Conservative government that got the build under way by ordering the first ship, if Labour had been in power they would probably have cancelled the entire class like they axed the CVA-01 fleet carrier and all but one of the T82 destroyers.

[@houndoftindalos9580]

@@paulc9588 The order for the first ship was given to Vickers (Shipbuilding) on 17 April 1973- under the Wilson Labour Gov't -six years before Thatcher. In fact all three of the Invincible class were ordered and laid down under a Labour Gov't.

[@paulc9588]

@@houndoftindalos9580 I think you will find that Edward Heath was in power in April 1973 with Peter Carrington as SoS for Defence. Harold Wilson was not re-elected until February 1974 as leader of a minority government with a second election in October 1974 that gave Labour a slim majority. Ordering the first ship before the cost-cutting defence review of 1975 under Roy Mason was essential in ensuring the CVS did not suffer the same fate as the CVA-01.

[@andrewgeorge4294]

They were rubbish, poorly, armed, poorly designed

[@UsuallyTrolling]

source?

[@billywobbledagger-on9gl]

Did you serve on any? I did, Brazen & Cornwall. Batch 1 & 2''s missing a main gun, but poorly armed? Not in the cold war they weren't. They could really ruin someone's day. The design was great, they had great sea keeping at speed, large passageways (especially compared to Leander's), plenty of room and engine changes didn't involve cutting massive holes in the hull and welding it all shut again.

[@bobbyrayofthefamilysmith24]

@@billywobbledagger-on9gl The problem I can see is only 4 anti ship missiles. In theory a typical destroyer needed 4 to 6 missile min saturation attack to get through so this would be unable to sink any opponent if that estimate was true. Did it have CIWS? British procurement since WW2 seems to rely on always getting lucky. Getting lucky isn't a strategy but I guess since MPs families won't be fighting they don't care.

[@Colonel_Blimp]

Anti-shipping strike was the carrier’s job. The RN wasn’t refighting Jutland.

[@bobbyrayofthefamilysmith24]

@@Colonel_Blimp "wasn't fighting jutland" Might not have planned to fight jutland but in a war they'd have to fight whatever battle/scenario they finds itself in. And that will rarely be the one exact and only scenario you planned for. Having ALL offensive capability restricted to the carrier means the enemy only has to sink ONE ship to win. It's provides the enemy an unbelievably obvious weakness to exploit....brilliant.

[@UncleMisu]

It's a shame that they didn't see more life in Romania.. they were supposed to be modernized when we bought them but.. economical and corruption problems left them useless