Originally Posted by
msbbarratt
So they were built out of thin steel to save weight.
However, what they've mostly done is dash hither and thither, putting a lot of miles on the clocks. Not good for the hulls or main machinery.
T45 is much sturdier (commercial build standard - 0.5inch plating) - it'll take a lot longer for those to rust through. So are the new carriers, and presumably the T26, and I think everything built since Ocean.
In fact, your T23 had higher scantlings than the T22. The real issue for the T23 is that they were designed and built for a life of 18 years - with one mid-life capability upgrade and then disposal. So there were few margins (weight, space, power, stability etc) built in. Argyll - the eldest RN ship left - is now 26 and has another 6 years to go. Some of them will do 35-36 years - double their design life - on current plans. Somehow the genius in charge of T31e seems to have missed this salutary lesson in what happens when you ask the Treasury for a new ship, rather than "extend" the existing ones......
Tootling about in the GIUK gap tends to put a lot of stress into the hull girder (which was sub-optimal to start with), whereas what they've actually seen in sea states is a bit less. One reason why they haven't really fallen over yet.
T45 is not to commercial standards but to Lloyds Register Naval Ship Rules (as are T26 and to a degree QEC). That does tend to mean thicker plate from less optimised structural arrangements. The real thing that helps T45 is the hull depth vs length. T26 is not quite in the same happy position....