Royal Navy White Elephant

52
Royal Navy White Elephant

I must admit that I always thought it was a two-pipe, judging by the profile photographs. It turned out that it was three-pipe. The aft two small pipes removed gases, each from its own gas turbine unit.

The ship was built as the lead ship in a series of eight Type 82 destroyers to accompany promising aircraft carriers. However, these aircraft carriers were not even laid down, and at the time the construction of aircraft carriers was abandoned, the Bristol hull was already at a fairly high degree of readiness. Dismantling would have required the same amount of time and money, so we decided to finish building it.

The ship, to put it mildly, turned out to be original, if not extravagant. What the designers were trying to achieve is still unclear to me. The power plant is a combined steam turbine plus gas turbine. It was assumed that the Bristol would run constantly in steam, and the GTA would be turned on for afterburner.



In reality, after the fire, the steam boilers were not restored, and the entire service was carried out on the GTA. Naturally, it could not reach the design speed of 28 knots, but this was no longer required.

"Bristol" received a very diverse bouquet, including the Limbo anti-submarine bomber from the Second World War, which no longer made any sense. However, it was removed fairly quickly.

Likewise, the Icarus anti-aircraft missile system did not take root on its deck. There was no clear explanation as to why it was abandoned. Perhaps they assumed that the anti-aircraft defense functions would be assigned to type 23 frigates.

Due to the fact that the ship was intended to escort aircraft carriers, it did not receive a hangar for helicopters, although there was enough space on the aft deck. Moreover, due to its size, the Bristol was a much better platform for helicopters than Type 42 destroyers or Type 23 frigates, but was not often used for these purposes.

The Sea Dart launcher was located in the stern and had a normal b/c 40 missiles, unlike the Type 42 destroyers, which had 22 missiles. In addition, the forward placement of the launchers and the “short” forecastle led to the fact that the Sea Dart launchers on Type 42 destroyers were very “wet”.

According to the recollections of the commander of the formation, Rear Admiral John S. Woodward, a very dangerous situation arose a couple of times.

Once the hatch covers were deformed by wave impacts, and the missiles could not be fed onto the guides at all. After the alarm was cleared, the sailors used sledgehammers to “straighten” the lids.

The second time, the missiles were already on the guides, but the splashes of sea water that settled on the surface of the guides and missiles formed a thin salt crust, which caused the microswitches to fail. The missile defense system was on the guide, but the control electronics did not see it. Fortunately for the “enlightened sailors,” the Argentines were not able to take advantage of such gifts.

"Bristol" also took part in the Falklands War. Because it had a Type 965 long-range radar and as many as 2 Type 909 CHs, unlike the Sheffield-class destroyers, which had one Type 909 CH.

Due to its low speed, it was not suitable for the “first line”, but it was quite suitable for covering landing ships and “floating rear” vessels. He even carried out several launches of the Sea Dart missile defense system, but without success.

Since 1993 - a training ship.

And so, you need to understand, in the near foreseeable future the last British steamship will be completely decommissioned and sold for dismantling.
52 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. -7
    17 January 2024 04: 26
    A large ship needs a large torpedo. The Anglo-Saxons will not have ships for northern latitudes.
    1. +4
      17 January 2024 19: 53
      In the near foreseeable future, the last British steamship will be completely decommissioned and sold for dismantling.

      They will probably also be sent to Turkey, like Campbeltown (F86) Chatham (F87) and Cumberland (F85).
      After all, the Turkish company LEYAL Ship Recycling Ltd is engaged in the recycling of Her Majesty's scrapped ships.
  2. -9
    17 January 2024 04: 54
    Judging by the amount of rust, the ancient technology of orthophosphoric acid is beyond fantasy.
    Once the manhole covers were deformed by wave impacts

    Plasticine armor? belay I swam in a wave generator in a frog on Yaroslavl back in 2000 and I didn’t get dented by any hatches wassat drinks Even the balls are in place good
    1. +5
      17 January 2024 09: 43
      What do you want from a 1969 ship that has long been decommissioned?
    2. 0
      27 March 2024 12: 18
      Painting it no longer makes any sense, it’s a write-off anyway. An ocean wave weighing tens of tons, this is not a water park)))
  3. +18
    17 January 2024 05: 20
    Quite a crappy article. The author, for example, lumped together types 82 and 42, because the Icarus anti-aircraft missile system was abandoned on the cheaper Sheffields, but the Bristol had it, with an ammo capacity of more than 20 missiles.
    Well, the only “oddity” in “Bristol” is the low location of the radar antennas, which can be explained by the large mass of the then antennas, radomes and equipment. Even the absence of a hangar is explained by the aft location of a heavy air defense system with a large ammunition load.
    1. +3
      17 January 2024 09: 47
      Icarus was removed from the ship after the Falklands War.
      Soon after this, the ship was converted into a training ship, and a couple of years later it was laid up as a floating barracks and training classes for sailors and others.
      1. -1
        17 January 2024 09: 52
        Quote from solar
        Icarus was removed from the ship after the Falklands War.
        Soon after this, the ship was converted into a training ship, and a couple of years later it was laid up as a floating barracks and training classes for sailors and others.

        In general, in combat service, the Bristol was equipped with the Icara, and they did not bother with the Super Icara due to old age.
        1. +3
          17 January 2024 11: 08
          “Icarus” somehow didn’t work at all, although it was Anglo-Australian. I do not know why. Possibly low performance characteristics, perhaps for reasons of economy.
          1. 0
            17 January 2024 11: 16
            Quote: TermNachTER
            “Icarus” somehow didn’t work at all, although it was Anglo-Australian. I do not know why. Possibly low performance characteristics, perhaps for reasons of economy.

            The performance characteristics are probably so-so, but several countries have fully adopted it.
            1. +3
              17 January 2024 12: 44
              Those countries are mainly the British Commonwealth - Australia, New. Zealand.
    2. +3
      17 January 2024 10: 37
      What prevented you from installing a Sea Dart launcher in the nose, like on the Type 42? The AWACS radar on the Bristol was the same as on the Sheffields, type 965, did they have a higher antenna? Woodward constantly complained about the short detection range.
      1. 0
        17 January 2024 11: 01
        Quote: TermNachTER
        What prevented you from installing a Sea Dart launcher in the nose, like on the Type 42?
        PU PLRK "Ikara".
        Quote: TermNachTER
        The AWACS radar on the Bristol was the same as on the Sheffields, type 965, did they have a higher antenna?
        On the "Bristol" it is higher, taking into account the displacement, high location of the bridge and higher foremast. But the 909 radars under the fairings are noticeably lower.
        1. +1
          17 January 2024 11: 06
          The dimensions of the forecastle on the "Bristol" made it possible to place two launchers, which, by the way, happened quite often.
          1. 0
            17 January 2024 11: 14
            Quote: TermNachTER
            The dimensions of the forecastle on the "Bristol" made it possible to place two launchers, which, by the way, happened quite often.

            It’s possible in three, probably, but with the size of the BC it doesn’t work out very well, guaranteed. But in the case of the Icarus, there is also a nuance in addition to the considerable ammunition: the British needed the ability to change the warhead from a conventional one to a nuclear one at sea, and for this they needed premises.
            1. +1
              17 January 2024 11: 23
              Regarding the B/C, it was possible to make a “cropped” version, like on the Sheffield, with 22 missiles.
              1. 0
                17 January 2024 11: 29
                Quote: TermNachTER
                Regarding the B/C, it was possible to make a “cropped” version, like on the Sheffield, with 22 missiles.


                So where?
                1. +1
                  17 January 2024 12: 42
                  Should the bow SN 909 be moved to the superstructure?
                  1. +1
                    17 January 2024 14: 44
                    Quote: TermNachTER
                    Those countries are mainly the British Commonwealth - Australia, New. Zealand.

                    Brazil and Chile.

                    Quote: TermNachTER
                    Should the bow SN 909 be moved to the superstructure?

                    The British are stupid and didn’t realize it... Where would the 965 with the equipment go, back and above? I don’t think that on the destroyers of the 60s, with the electronics of that time, there were no problems with premises and stability.
                    1. 0
                      17 January 2024 19: 46
                      Chile is a regular buyer of British ships. There have always been problems with electronics placement and top weight. I think if the designers had “racked their brains” a little, they would have figured out where to “stick it”. At least, like on the 42s, on the chimney.
                      1. +2
                        17 January 2024 22: 52
                        There are few options: increase the width and add ballast. Both options lead to a decrease in speed and an increase in fuel consumption.
                      2. 0
                        18 January 2024 00: 05
                        The ship is already not small in size. Type 42, the second series, was also lengthened by 15 m, the displacement increased by 400 tons. The speed remained almost the same. Why couldn't they do the same with Bristol?
                      3. +3
                        18 January 2024 00: 27
                        Lengthening the ship does not eliminate the problem with the top vest, because... what is at the top on the short body should remain at the top on the long one.
                      4. 0
                        18 January 2024 03: 38
                        Quote: TermNachTER
                        Chile is a regular buyer of British ships.

                        Like Brazil, but they are not part of the Commonwealth...

                        Quote: TermNachTER
                        I think if the designers had “racked their brains” a little, they would have figured out where to “stick” it.
                        Clearly, the British are stupid...

                        Quote: TermNachTER
                        At least, like on the 42s, on the chimney.

                        I don't need to know the silhouettes of the ships, but it's hard to look at the picture in the search? Where is the pipe and where are the radar antennas for 42...
                      5. 0
                        18 January 2024 07: 59
                        This meant a small mast near the pipe for type 42. Although antennas were also placed on pipes.
                      6. 0
                        18 January 2024 08: 03
                        Z.Y. The British may not be stupid. But their latest ships raise certain doubts. And “Bristol,” to put it mildly, is strange. And “Sheffield” is by no means a masterpiece. And the Type 45 is also a lot of questions, and the new aircraft carriers, God forgive me, what can you say.
    3. +2
      17 January 2024 10: 52
      The note did not cover the entire life of the Bristol or all Type 42s. Only a few notable milestones are listed. I only expressed my surprise that he was still “afloat”.
  4. +7
    17 January 2024 05: 46
    1) "Bristol" in the Falklands.
    2) In the same place - "Sheffield" is on fire.
    3) Type 42 destroyer "Glasgow".
  5. +5
    17 January 2024 06: 37
    and entire Type 909 CHs, in contrast to the Sheffield-class destroyers, which each had one Type 909 CH.
    whole two CH type 909
    1. +2
      17 January 2024 10: 38
      Thanks for the clarification, it was the editor who corrected me that way. I do not know why.
  6. +10
    17 January 2024 06: 54
    He even carried out several launches of the Sea Dart missile defense system, but to no avail.
    It happened on May 22.05.1982, 707. Then the Bristol was the flagship of the formation of the same name. When a Boeing 2 appeared on radar, they tried to shoot it down. "Cardiff" launched 2 "Sea Darts" - one fell into the sea, the Argentine dodged the second (!), and meanwhile "Bristol" also fired XNUMX missiles - due to interference from the radars of its own ships, i.e. just to nowhere. This was the extent of his Sea Dart firing throughout the war.
  7. +4
    17 January 2024 07: 32
    Well, everyone has unsuccessful projects, in essence this is development, mistakes and breakthroughs. The main thing is to accumulate experience.
    1. +4
      17 January 2024 09: 49
      During the course of the work, the need for it disappeared and it was completed as a ship for testing new technologies and equipment.
    2. 0
      27 March 2024 12: 23
      Somehow, unsuccessful projects among the British are happening more and more often, but for some reason experience is not accumulating. All of their following ships are much more expensive and of very mediocre quality.
  8. +4
    17 January 2024 09: 55
    Dear author! By analogy with the article about the “White Elephant” of the Royal Navy, would you please please the readers of “V.O.” an article about the gray atomic beauty that was handed over to the USSR Navy in the year of the Moscow Olympics, which bore the names, under different rulers, then Kostrikov, then Ushakov and again Kostrikov. About that ship that has been modernized and modernized since 1999 and has not yet been disposed of.
    1. +4
      17 January 2024 10: 45
      Good afternoon. Well, firstly, the cruisers pr 1144 are not exactly “white elephants”. There were still four of them.
      Secondly, serious considerations, starting with HTA, the process of construction and service - this would fill a normal-sized book. It’s impossible to fit into an article, even a large one. If you are interested in "Nakhimov", I recommend "Balancer Forums. Marine", there is a very large section dedicated to him. In addition, quite competent comrades from the past communicate there. Both naval and shipbuilders.
      1. +6
        17 January 2024 10: 47
        Z.Y. Etc. 1144 was unlucky in that it appeared at the end of the USSR. If there was a Union, they would serve happily ever after.
        1. 0
          17 January 2024 19: 08
          So “Losharik” was born at the wrong time. And considering how the glorious prosecutor’s office of the USSR behaved in the late 80s and early 90s of the 20th century, and then the prosecutor’s office of the Russian Federation picked up the baton, I am still surprised how this ship was built... And also remember the “Ural” and spice it all up, at night, with memories of “Dear Mikhail Sergeevich”, about the first popularly elected and the chicks of Gaidar’s nest...
          1. +3
            17 January 2024 19: 32
            What I can tell you is that I also regret the collapse of the Union. I lived with him for 22 years, and I think that these were not the worst years of my life.
      2. 0
        17 January 2024 18: 55
        Dear, I can watch “Nakhimov”. I communicated very closely with some of the father-commanders: they visited me at home, I visited them on the ship. I had the opportunity to accompany high-ranking officials, who had never seen the sea, from Moscow on an excursion to the cruiser, and to show what a gas station country was like in the late 90s and early 2000s and what it could or could do. We visited the SEVMASH museum, but I feel that the men were not very impressed. We reached workshop 50, the caps fell from their heads, showed them that there is workshop 55 of SEVMASH, they saw “Sharks” on the water side by side, and climbed aboard the “Nakhimov”, walked around the ship, to the “Zvezdochka” and its orders on the water through They looked at the ship's optics, after an hour they drank real naval tea with lemon in the commander's cabin and said that it seemed like they understood what the fleet is for Russia. That films and even a museum are, of course, great, but as they saw it for themselves, as they walked along the gangways and decks, their sensations and minimal knowledge became, for some reason, more vivid and convex.
        1. 0
          17 January 2024 19: 33
          If you know all this better than me, then why are you asking?
          1. 0
            17 January 2024 21: 21
            Dear, I didn’t write a word that I know something better than you.
            I have never been to Kirov. Of those who went to sea on it, I don’t know a single person: neither sailors and conscript foremen, nor contract soldiers, nor midshipmen, nor officers. I know several people who served on it already in the Southern Yagras on the territory of “Zvezdochka”. And I’m also not familiar with those who designed and built it in Leningrad.
            And my native country is amazing. Almost anywhere you find people you could have met 30 or 40 years ago. Or you meet people who can tell you a lot about something that you would like to know more details about, but somehow you still couldn’t find the information. That’s why I asked you about your plans to write an article about “Kirov” - “Ushakov”.
            1. +1
              18 January 2024 00: 16
              A seafaring classmate of mine served on the Kirov, albeit as a simple sailor, so he couldn’t tell us anything global. Only what I saw. Sprinkling a small article is not serious. Even for one ship, not to mention four. To write a serious book means working in archives, at shipyards (if they allow it), looking for former crew members. Huge work. They used to publish very good books on ships - “Wonderful Ships”, other series, good, intelligent authors like Melnikov. But somehow they didn’t get to the “eagles”. And now I don’t know any of them.
  9. +6
    17 January 2024 12: 16
    In reality, after the fire, steam boilers were not restored

    In reality, the steam turbine plant was restored in 1976. In 1984, the steam boiler exploded again and was rebuilt.
    1. 0
      17 January 2024 19: 37
      I won’t argue, but apparently even when the vocational school was in good working order, they preferred to go under the gas turbine engine. Apparently it was more convenient this way. The ship is, in many ways, strange. The British generally preferred to have four-shaft installations for large ships. Although, after WWII, they already began to move away from this rule. In this case, two steam and two gas turbines worked on two shafts (gearboxes). I'm interested to look at the diagram of this TZA.
      1. 0
        17 January 2024 22: 54
        Interestingly, the same fuel was used for the PTU and GTU?
        1. +1
          18 January 2024 00: 02
          Most likely yes, some version of DT.
  10. +5
    18 January 2024 00: 16
    County, Sheffield, Broadsward. The symbolic ships of the Royal Navy are becoming a thing of the past. It would be more correct to preserve it as a monument, because it is unique in its own way. And it survived the Falklands War, unlike Sheffield.
  11. 0
    24 January 2024 11: 35
    Likewise, the Icarus anti-aircraft missile system did not take root on its deck. There was no clear explanation as to why it was abandoned. Perhaps they assumed that the anti-aircraft defense functions would be assigned to type 23 frigates.


    For a simple reason - the Mk.44 torpedo was outdated by the end of the 1980s, and could not carry the newer and heavier Icarus. They wanted to replace the installation with torpedo tubes, but in the end they simply removed it.
  12. 0
    4 February 2024 22: 59
    Quote: TermNachTER
    I won’t argue, but apparently even when the vocational school was in good working order, they preferred to go under the gas turbine engine.

    Were there no scrap boilers on it? This suggests itself - put the exhaust from the gas turbine engine through a recovery boiler and use a steam turbine, obviously not at full capacity, but the profit will clearly be decent.
    1. 0
      27 March 2024 12: 37
      The topic of recovery boilers somehow did not catch on. Not only among the British, but also among us. I don’t even know why, either the concept itself turned out to be erroneous, or the technology of that time did not allow the creation of a viable design.
  13. 0
    21 March 2024 10: 29
    This is not the tub that the British laughed at, thinking that it was the creation of the Russians. The laughing stopped when someone who knew about it said