Type 45 Destroyer HMS Diamond is in port with “technical issues”, the British Embassy in Singapore has confirmed.

The issue is not related to the propulsion and power systems.

The vessel had previously detached from the UK’s Carrier Strike Group back in July whilst in the Mediterranean Sea before sailing again to re-join the group in the Pacific.

It is currently unknown what the issue is, let’s not jump to any conclusions.

What is the Carrier Strike Group doing?

Commodore Steve Moorhouse, Commander United Kingdom Carrier Strike Group, also said in a news release:

“The Carrier Strike Group’s deployment has been designed to recognise the importance of the region globally. The Group’s presence also demonstrates our support for the freedom of navigation passage through vital trading routes and our commitment to an international system of norms that benefits all countries.

So thank you Singapore for your support to the Carrier Strike Group’s deployment, for contributing to air exercises alongside our jets and supporting HMS Queen Elizabeth’s pit stop at Changi. We are proud to play our part in continuing to grow and deepen the Singapore-UK relationship.”

As part of its maiden operational deployment, the Carrier Strike Group will sail over 26,000 nautical miles, engaging with 40 countries from the Mediterranean to the Indo-Pacific and back again.

The Carrier Strike Group includes ships from the United States Navy, the Dutch Navy, and Marines from the US Marine Corps as well as air assets from 617 Sqn, 820 NAS, 815 NAS and 845 NAS.

The Carrier Strike Group.

Not pictured above is an Astute class submarine. The Carrier Strike Group was joined in the opening phase of the deployment by HMS Artful (which returned to Gibraltar after completing the opening phase), now another Astute class submarine (HMS Astute or HMS Ambush) has joined the group as pointed out by NavyLookout on Twitter.

George Allison
George Allison
George has a degree in Cyber Security from Glasgow Caledonian University and has a keen interest in naval and cyber security matters and has appeared on national radio and television to discuss current events. George is on Twitter at @geoallison
Twitter

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

171 COMMENTS

          • Yes Mark it’s very technical but the gist of the mater is the American Rubber band wind Counter clockwise rather than the British are Anti clockwise What that means ifs should have bought Malaysian Rubber bands that’s why Diamond is in Singas

          • I’m not sure that once the UK has eliminated the issues with the Type 45, added additional kit it wouldn’t be a good idea to build 6 more.

          • There’s no capacity in UK shipyards to build additional T45s, Mark. Indeed the last T45 (Duncan) was launched over ten years ago.
            Best we can maybe hope is for the MoD to extend the Type 26 production run at Govan – and add a 9th and 10th hull (etc) for a AAW variant of the T26.

          • You have my vote too. I’d also like see 1-2 to more ASW T26s in the fleet. As has been mentioned before an AAW T26 will need a stretch for additional VLS. If QUAD CAMM is selected (as is in the Canadian T26) there’s already a huge space saving.
            With all the tech and missile upgrade investment going into the T45 let’s hope they can get these issues sorted out.

          • Shouldn’t be too much of a stretch to obtain a design stretch! Seriously I think we are very tight with just six AAW ships as it is. Maybe a better medium term solution would be to have four AAW versions and two more ASW types, increasing the overall build line.

          • OK this is fantasy fleet territory but if its dedicated AAW the why not go for the T31, You don’t need the more complex super quiet propulsion system of the T26. The beam of the T31 is 1 metre less than the T26 which as I understand is more critical than length for the mast height you want for AAW. So not much difference.

            The radar of an intermediate AAW ship would likely be closer to the flat panel AESA on the Hunter class or original Danish design but you’d start from scratch here to get the max mast height for the hull, probably composite mast. The original Danish design had 32 mk41 and 24 mk56 launch tubes.

            Probably looking at 2 for the price of a T26 and the line in Rosyth has the capacity now.

          • I think the general consensus of opinion on here was that the Type 26 would not be the best starting point for the Type 45 replacement, if as you say the Type 31 has a narrower Beam than the Type 26 then I’d have thought that would rule it out also.

          • And I agree with that but my post was aimed at if we needed to boost numbers with a current Hull then the T31 should be considered. Anyway it’s fantasy fleet stuff no AAW hulls will be built until next decade.

          • Hi expat, You’re right . It’s a bit like a Christmas wish list. I was thinking of the T26 because of Q.D. but also because the T26 is very similar in size to the FREMM…65 to 68 feet in the beam respectively and the French have gone ahead as you know with AAW in Alsace and Lorraine.

          • Yes but is the propulsion system for the type 26 tried and tested? How do we know we won’t be back to square one?

          • HMS Richmond has an upgraded Powertrain that has lots in common with that of the Type 26,she is performing well on CSG21 so logically the T26 shouldn’t suffer any similar issues.

          • Good to know. Are we to believe that the MOD are using Richmond as a testbed for T26 propulsion. If so perhaps T26 will be a platform for multi-role reliable RN ships of the future. If so we should have 10 not 2. However perhaps we are getting ahead of ourselves.

          • We they delivered the gear boxes late for the first T26 so holes were left in the hull to slot them in. Lets hope that extra time was used for factory tests 🙂

          • Perhaps capacity is the real issue Alan. Would it not be a good move to have Government money support facilities throughout the UK.

          • The Type 83 is the replacement for the T45 not some extra T26. We stuck at 8 T26 hulls BECAUSE we could not afford more.

            I would rather see money go to T83 as this will be a more capable desighn.

          • Hi,

            There are not many details but we can make some reasonable deductions. Firstly it will be at least as well armed as the upgraded T45 with 48+24 missiles. As the UK has expressed an interest in ASTER 30 block 1NT it would likely that it will have this missile as the link range option. Possibly with the ABM ASTER 30 block 2 when it comes on line. Sea Ceptor is the close to medium range SAM. The number of the missile load-out might be larger then T45.

            The designation is reminiscent of the old Bristol T82 destroyer. T82 had strengths in anti-air/sub. As it was designed to protect a carrier from multiple threat types. We can speculate that the new T83 will be similar. Primarily an air defence platform with anti-sub capability. It may also have an anti-ship role.

            CWIS may include energy weapons. Possibly gun armament that can do CWIS such as the T31 guns a 57mm and two 40mm. A rail gun again is possible when the technology comes on line,

            I think it is unlikely all the above could go on a T26 hull. So I think a clean sheet design is likely.

          • its a type Number and an Artist rendering, Lick one’s finger and point it to skywoods.

            Will it be manned/ what will arm it, but someone will be taking £100000s off the tax payer

          • The T45 is a legacy design now. I doubt more could be built even if the capacity existed. As others suggest, the only workable solution (but unlikely unfortunately) would be to build a couple of AAW T26s.

          • No probably sell them to the Russians as a thank you for Salisbury that about the competence of Boris and ritchie
            Well if we get invaded by mercon we can send our Welsh mam’s in Red shawls and hopefully they might run away again and Boris could give another round of bullshit about cost and age of tanks and can we afford them so he call them HMS Cambria royal marine commando’s

          • Shame we can’t come up with a common design for all the anglosphere 5 eyes navies and build them in each of those nations. Split the R&D costs and pool the technology.

          • Its not clear what the problem is yet. The story behind the WR21 engines is that we took a punt on innovation, the intercooled / heat recovery design seemed to offer advantages in fuel consumption, reducing emissions and extending range. The project had UK, French and US backing at first, but only the UK stuck with it. It uses innovative heat recovery technology from F1 as well as the intercooler.

          • USA and innovative designs, FORD CLASS v QE Class which design was a risk, Which design is currently on Active Duty, Which design are there 2 in service, AND WHICH DESIGN still cannot launch a lifeboat. RN learnt a good deal about fitting Innovation, but don’t risk the Engine room.

          • The RR gas turbines in the T45 are very reliable, it is the US built intercoolers that go wrong. So it is a US problem and not a UK one.

          • The intercoooler is an integral part of the WR21, so they can’t be separated really – but you are right GE was responsible for the intercooler design.

          • Once fitted the N.G designed intercooler were in theory supposed too have the longethaty of the ship that there built around Once in in for Life ? Evidently the Yanks don’t thrash the Ships like us OOW manoeuvres

          • The USN don’t use the design – they pulled out of the project as too risky – only the the UK persisted with it.

          • Evidently, ,James, the previous Labour Government, must of thought they were on to a good thing Cheap in the short term extortionate in the long term they were good at wasting Taxpayers money

          • TBH honest MoD procurement mistakes seem to be politically agnostic. Shit under both parties.

          • Sack Whitehall Civvies and employ EX military personnel cheap at half the price than Civil servants and their Luncheon Vouchers

          • I am sorry to tell you this but it is politicians who decide such things. The poor staff just have to carry out their silly ideas.

          • The Problem also arises when MPs whose previous occupation was that of the Armed Forces seem too be Never listened too as well

          • I’d pair them up with some savvy commercial bods from industries like commercial aviation and oil n gas where they don’t d1ck around on contracts excepting liabilities 🙂

          • trouble is Ex-Service don’t care about wasting money, If they get taken to Spain and a new car, they would buy a plastic duck. Cservs are doing as per the procurement guidelines. There Was a Procurement order through an office for 5 Land Rover Defenders, Order stated make n model and the requirement. 110 @ £100k each, Procurement office looked @ spec and asked for reasons model selected, as the procurement paper said they were for training ground use. The office came back and quoted they could purchase 5 4×4 crew cabbed pickups to meet the spec for the price of 1 Defender, @ Which point the C/O let slip well im not towing my boat with a crap pickup. from the Nation Audit office files. hate working with the Civservs but they don’t miss manage money, its when some top brass keeps changing shit

          • Until they worked out there is no repeat business if it runs forever, and so they design it badly, USA defence industry and contractors are like the UKs in the 70s

          • Its still a UK problem as we have them fitted on UK ships. At this stage playing the blame game is a kind of moot point.

          • Could of been a lot Worse Hoon could of been replaced with Blunkitt then we would of been up the Creek

          • Surely the problem most of the time has been the failure of the US-made intercooler on the British Gas Turbine engine.

      • The design is fine. They are all getting an upgrade with a extra diesel generator set to provide more power to augment the WR21 in hot conidtions (it works fine in cool climates), but Diamond has not had the upgrade yet.

        • Hi James, yes appreciate the issues and the fact that the problem isnt propulsion related. More just frustration on my part really, expect this is the last thing they needed really, but probably not unrealistic given the increased tempo of ops she is undertaking.

          • It’s extremely frustrating. It feels as if the ‘good’ news stories that are generated by the Andrew are keelhauled and fired out of a cannon by the Type 45 problems. Thankfully, the work on fixing it has been started AND we can look forward to them receiving an additional capability upgrade in the coming years (finally).

            I guess we’re reaping what we sow in many aspects. The demand for a higher operational tempo has placed increased strain on smaller fleets of ships. We should have had twelve of these, but the cut from eight to six was arguably an even bigger mistake. There’s also the very real concern of upgrades slipping in nature, putting even more strain on other ships in the fleet. However, it’s also worth recognising that we live in an era driven by news and social media. The Royal Navy has always experienced mechanical problems and it always will. We just hear more about it now than we ever did.

            I do think the RN/MoD needs to be upfront about what happened here… if only to quell the ‘broken engine’ brigade. I’m not lumping you in that one, Deep, but it would be a good chance to highlight the challenges faced on operations and the work that’s done by sailors and those based in Singapore to rectify this.

            Do I have your permission to cross my fingers and hope that the constraints demonstrated here inspire the powers that be to buy eight Type 83s when it comes to it? 😉

          • Hello mate, couldn’t agree more with what you said, lack of numbers is eventually going to bite us in the butt!

            I think it would be enlightening if the MOD did actually spell out how much work a crew puts in to get a ship ready for a deployment such as this, might open a few eyes….. God you will have me defending binbags next,!! Will need to give myself a good talking too if that occurs. 🤣🤣

            No permission needed mate, think we would all welcome the fact if the MOD actually saw fit to order 8+ T83’s. If nothing else this deployment has highlighted the need for numbers of escorts to be increased from what we currently have.

    • The type 45 destroyers are way over rated not value for money. When you build such expensive ships you can’t afford to have 6 only which have constantly technical issues . The type 23 frigates have been great for the Royal Navy. The next destroyers must be value for money and the number of ships must be higher . The type 45 remind of the US Zumwalt class

      • That is what the defence secretary has already said. He was critical of the costs and unreliability of the T45 as it was a perfectionists dream.

        T31 is the first experiment in that direction.

    • You beat me to it 😂
      I too reckon its a cunning plan to accelerate the setting up of a RN ship repair facility in Singapore.

  5. I wonder will the lack of activity for these warships extend their service life. I know the problems will be solved but it does look like the ships have only completed a fraction of the patrols that they would have expected to up to this point.

    • by the time the ships are really sorted they’ll be scrap aas it is they’re getting thrashed and will be worn out before their due dates

    • The Integrated Review published in March 2021 promised enhancements to the Sea Viper missile system, but the news that Type 45s will receive additional missiles is a big step forward and a welcome surprise.

      A new 24-missile Sea Ceptor silo will be added in front of the current 48-missile Sylver VLS silo (See speculative mockup above), increasing the overall missile capacity from 48 to 72.

      Not only does this raise overall missile numbers by 50%, but also offers the potential to increase the range and reach of the existing Sea Viper system.

      https://www.navylookout.com/royal-navys-type-45-destroyers-reaching-their-full-potential-with-addition-of-sea-ceptor-missiles/

      • nice having more missiles on a warship however, pointless if said warship sends most of its time in port undergoing repairs

        • Correct, hence my comment above!

          “Would it not make sense to get all Type 45s fixed and upgraded as an absolute priority?”

          • Have not at least 3 of them had new engines fitted already after cutting through the hull or did I dream that?(quite possible at my age)

          • Only Dauntless has received the new gen-sets, but she’s still at HMNB Birkenhead*. Daring has also joined her at Birkenhead; she’ll be the next to receive the upgrade.

            *I’m joking before anyone points it out. 🙂

          • Ah the Birkenhead Lusty-women and children first! About a thousand miles down the east coast from my home in Durban. A notoriously dangerous stretch of ocean with some giant seas and occasional rogue waves of immense proportion. No doubt you have first hand knowledge! The other irony is when the Oceanos sank off the coast near East London some years back the Captain abandoned ship before anyone else was rescued!! Back to every man for himself women and children last! 😂

          • Possibly.

            It’s worth noting that the Royal Navy currently operates two iterations of the 30mm – the DS-30B Mk 1 and the DS-30M Mk2. The DS-30B is used on the Type 45 destroyers and is different from the mounts on the Type 23 frigates(DS-30M) which were used for the test.

            I should imagine that it might be possible to upgrade the older DS-30B, but MSI (the manufacturer of the DS-30M) has already released a dedicated product (Sigma) that integrates the 30mm and Martlet. By the looks of it, Sigma utilises four LMM tubes rather than the five used in the test. I don’t know if this was due to feedback or operational concerns, but it’s certainly notable.

            I guess the bottom line is if the upgrade would be deemed worth it or not and whether there’s an operational need to procure it. The Type 45s benefit from four cannons, a bunch of mounted machine guns and miniguns, a helicopter with martlet and pretty soon they’ll have the missile upgrade as well. I don’t know if adding potentially new 30mms to the ships with ‘only’ eight missiles would be deemed worthy. Perhaps a better investment would be to ensure that they operate with two Wildcat, effectively meaning that the ship has access to potentially 40 Martlet missiles if necessary.

            Interestingly, MSI also offers a dedicated quad missile pack for LMM. If the RN decided to retain the 30mm as is, a few of these packs could make for an interesting addition to a variety of ships – including the Type 45s, Rivers and RFAs.

            I would add that a 30mm with martlet might be a good addition to the Type 31. They have a space assigned for 30mm cannon anyway and it might be easier to demonstrate ‘proof of concept’ on one, as well as demonstrate an operational requirement. Who knows, really.

        • You’re complaining about an issue that the RN and MoD have already begun addressing. But they can’t do the upgrades all six T45’s simultaneously, it’ll take time.

      • I’d like to see if they can squeeze in more CAMM six silos. My comment before my be a bit idiotic but could silos go on the hangar roof or is it too close to radar and aerials? Why aren’t they going go with the more space efficient 6*4 ExLS silos so you can get 48? I hope the T45s can always have a ASM/LAM fit. I think a lot of us here can see these beaut ships look underdone in the missile dept. ..but I am often taken in by appearances…

      • “…to increase the range and reach of the existing Sea Viper system.”

        How can Sea Ceptor increase the range and reach of Sea Viper? SC has a much shorter range than the Aster missile. I suppose it is an additional 24 missiles to throw at shorter range stuff coming for it.

    • Dauntless is completing her upgrade at Cammel Laird, Daring has just begun hers. Duncan is refitting in advance of hers at Portsmouth, Dragon, Diamond and Defender are all on operations. I doubt they can do it any quicker without compromising air defence for the carriers. It’s only a problem in hot conditions.

      • Thank you for the update, air defence for the carriers from partner nations spring to mind along with upgraded missile silos at the same time!

    • I’d agree with you Nigel. “It is currently unknown what the issue is, let’s not jump to any conclusions” is a fair statement to make but, whether it is propulsion related or not, the T45 is building a reputation, perception based or truth based. The PIP project needs putting at the top of any RN priority list, the delays we’ve seen in Birkenhead need to be resolved rapidly and we need to accelerate the rate of the programme. We need to show our Allies the T45 will be as reliable (if not more reliable) than anything they can bring to any CSG or other combined operation. I’m a supported of the T45 programme and I’m excited by the increase in firepower the extra silos will bring but we need to start showing this class of ship in its best light.

    • And the Italians will have their new DDXs in service by the end of this decade! What about a couple of modified AAW versions of these?

      • Because adding yet another class of warship in addition to the existing T45, T23, and forthcoming T26, T32 just increase the logistic, maintenance, and training overheads.
        Having a small number of ships with proprietary systems is a financial nightmare, just ask the USN about the Zumwalts.

        • Hi Sean, I was thinking of have a British built version with as much British and T45 equipment compatibility as possible… or build two more stretched T45s with T26 Mk 41 silo block added in with the six Aster silos and Camm silos. They clould probably build two new ships before all the problems are fixed on the current six.

          • At what about fixing all the issues that these new Italian DDXs will inevitably have, as all new warship designs do? Far better adding AAW T26s or T31s for commonality with the rest of the RN.

        • I was kind of indirectly making a comment that the Italians have designed something for into service at the end this the decade and the T83s are sometime in the 2030s. Seriously. Hopefully fix both the T45s and or bring the T83 schedule forward evennifvits a batch 1.

          • And how do you know the Italian destroyers won’t have worse issues than the T45? At least we know the T45 singular failing, the intercooler, and how to fix it. The T45s were designed with large capacity for future expansion, which is how the RN is able to add Sea Ceptor to them in addition to their existing missiles..

            With the amount of electrical generation capacity they’ll have after the power-improvement programme to fix the intercooler issue, I wouldn’t be surprised to see them be the first RN ships equipped with lasers.

          • I don’t know the Italian’s history of reliability of their vessels, they may have more or less. They’ve got a naval pedigree plus a tendency to arm more heavily compared to the RN. Like a lot of people here have said, the T45s could have been more fully armed from the beginning. I guess politics, costs, scheduling, reduction in numbers, all had something to do with that and we have got to let the PIP conclude and go from there. We all seriously wish all concerned the best of British for that!
            With the lasers, I read they’re first testing these on a T23, that have a good firing arc on their hangars. Does anyone here know the kill range for these lasers, is it 1-2-3+ km?
            Let’s hope these get added across the fleet.

          • The French and Italian’s went with the tried and tested GT’S, if they had any serious problems would we be in a position to know about it, anyone know?.

          • They don’t have problems with their vessels.
            Fincantieri is the 6th or 7th shipbuilding company in the world and the biggest in Europe. They are the biggest shipbuilder in Western world if you don’t count Korea and Japan as part of it.

            For military ships propulsion they only apply tested concepts.
            They are speculative in small merchant vessels, like methane propulsion, etc. The PPA bow was tested in some ferrys for Norway.
            I should note that the bungled T45 is something that appears linked to the speculative US culture period of LCS and Zummwalt failures. I wonder if the close culture between countries is making UK take more risk that it can take. UK should not forget that have no resources like USA,

            Italians have RR MT30 in their Trieste LHD, they build LM2500 that are in the FREMM and the electric engines, it is possible that the new DDX will also get MT30’s.

          • I think the increase in size of Italian DDX will mean they will put 2 MT30 in it. I don’t see them putting 3-4 LM2500 there.

          • Plenty of things that can go wrong on a ship aside from the power-plants and engines. The top-heavy listing German frigates being a good example…

      • Those Italian DDG(X) are supposed to be AAW with ABM capability.

        Since RN uses same AAW missiles as MM there would not be any problem.

        • Fantasy Fleet time for me (apologies) but if i had my way id order 2 DDX now to perform the same duties as a Tico does with the USN Carrier Groups – so each UK Carrier would have 1 x DDX (AAW Lead + ABM) 2 x Type 45 ( AAW) 2 x Type 23/26 ( ASW ) + the obvious Support Ships etc.

          • True – you can never have too many ASW Specialist Ships in a Carrier Group but from what information is available the DDX would have vastly superior ASW Capability than the Type 45, which could supplement the Type 26’s.

    • Should have kept the T42’s going until the T45’s actually worked. Shocking vessels in so many ways outside the weapon system which is spot in (when its got power). Poor design overall having served on two of them….

      Anyone got some spare batteries???????

      • I assume you’d want to retain the T42’s to tow the T45’s? Combining the T42’s working engines with the T45’s armaments you’d have the best of both… though the manning costs would be a nightmare.

        • Good luck trying to power an IEP ship with the DG sets off a T42.
          The engines on a T45 produce electricity to turn the drive motor attached to the shafts.
          T42 had Tyne and Oly GTs driving a gearbox to turn the shafts.
          A Completely different drive train.
          As a T45 is IEP almost everything is electrically powered unlike a T42. So hot water and fresh water on a T42 was donkey boilers and evaps. T45 is RO and water heaters… There was a hydraulic ring main on a T42. Valves where manually operated. DGs needed for electric power even when the GTs where on and T42s did TLF .
          They where ridiculously expensive to keep going towards the end of their lives and just ate the RNs maintenance budget.

          • I think you missed my sarcasm at the concept of retaining the obsolete T42’s as Angus was suggesting… 🤷‍♂️

          • No worries, just surprised as I normally agree completely with what you post! Clearly you have a lot of practical knowledge and experience on the subject, unlike the hysterical merchants of doom that troll here.

      • remind me what powered the type 42s and who stopped providing tech support or spares on these Engines. which led to the death bell of our carriers. No serviceable engines.

    • Not really the fault of BAE. The original specification was a ship that could operate in the cold Atlantic region….. the breakdowns relating to engine performance tail off in warmer climates which was something that RR warned of. This was why BAE wanted to use an American (proven) turbine that had already had hundreds in service with military and civilian ships worldwide because they knew the ships would go everywhere. The political move was to choose the more expensive RR option to support UK industry. RR are also not to blame as they met the “Atlantic” spec…. Think of it like buying a fiesta to drive to the shops and the office and then trying to drive it up a mountain.

  12. We look like fools, and this is not the time to look like fools. FIX IT. Understand nature of problem and fix it. Then fix the others in class because they will suffer the same defect.

    • We look even greater fools if most of our ships are tied up alongside as they have been for the past decade. A higher tempo operations mean that there will be higher profile techincal problems now and again – Hermes limped out of port towards the Falklands in 1982 on one engine, it had to be fixed at sea.

      • True. Invincible needed an engine change down south too. But my point, if this is same old – same old engine trouble, then someone needs to get a grip and sort it. I know ships break, but this type KEEPS breaking and root cause seems to come back to engines. Given that persistent narrative, I’d expect the powers that be bear down and put it to bed and stop the theme of Type 45 as a jinxed and failing type.

  13. Ships systems break.
    Its not a situation unique to T45.
    Plenty of T23 vessels have been stuck alongside for equipment defects. Some of the defects may appear to be minor but the effect on OC is huge until they are repaired.

    If its a defect that means she had to go alongside then it is a loss of Operational Capability that cannot be lived with by the Command or repaired at sea.

    Things that put you alongside in peacetime would be things such as , for the ME world,
    Fridge /Freezer defects, RO plant, Sewage system, AC systems. which obviously affect a ships ability to stay at sea because of habatability issues.

    WE defects could be Radar and especially equipment up the outside of the mast where a crane is required. Climbing masts at sea in peacetime isn’t an acceptable risk. Go alongside and fix it. Something as seemingly mundane as a defect on a wind speed and direction anemometer is a big ship stopper. Without that input into the ship then you are limited in Med Range Gunnery, Close Range Gunnery, Sea Gnat decoys, Helo ops, command system.

    On the air side a Helo defect could also do it. Spare engines are carried and they can be changed out but a gear box defect would be a show stopper especially with the upcoming transits through known pirate areas on the way home where helo top cover is preferred especially when armed with Martlet and the M3.

    So let’s see if they release what the defect is and then a better understanding of why they needed to go alongside will be known.

    • You make a good point. But the huge Navy we had in the past helped “hide” these types of problems because we always had good availability and OC. With the bare bones fleet we are now stuck with, these defects make bigger media noises and put our OC, assumptions of our capability and overall effectiveness under the magnifying glass.

      • We only know of these issues thanks to social media and twitter. Warships have always broken down with a huge list of possible causes. Back in the day, you simply didn’t know what or when vessels had to go alongside to be fixed. And todays RN has a very strong record of fleet availability, especially when you look at the global operations the RN is currently engaged with.

  14. The moral of the story is no other navy has bought this partricular engine set-up – only 6 ship-sets (plus whatever they have ashore to train crews?).

    Whereas the MT30 is going from strength to strength – as are the deisels from RR – and the various electric combinations from Alastrom (amongst others).

    WR21 political?

  15. Went to an airshow in Germany a few years back. There was a RN Merlin on static display, and the crew were chatting with passers by. I took a few minutes with the pilot myself. Asked him his honest opinion on the T45. Pulled an angry face and said “its a piece of crap”

    At £1bn apiece. Over 10 years ago.

    Dont care about Gumbuster’s PR anymore, fact is we’ve been sold 6 very expensive turkeys that we cannot rely on when the baloon goes up…

    • Maybe you should check the operational tempo of the T45 fleet over the last few years. As an AAW Destroyer, It’s world class. And that Turkey you talk about is trusted to defend Nimitz class carrier’s, because it has capabilitys the USN escort fleet doesn’t have.

    • Yeah a helicopter pilot is bound to be an expert on naval architecture…

      As I recall HMS Rodney had clapped out engines… yet when allied upon she still demolished Bismark.

      At launch a certain HMS Victory had a distinct list to starboard and was so overweight she sat so deep in the water her lowest set of gunports were not to be opened in rough weather. Yet she proved her worth.

      The T45’s are reliable under most sub-tropical conditions. And when the upgrades are complete should be good in all conditions… whereas Victory’s issues were never actually fixed.

          • After air power had damaged her rudders enabling the chasing Home fleet to close her position, not run for aircover and not evade their broadsides. Its still a moot point about what exactly caused Bismarck to sink. She was a floating wreck but her design comprising many closed compartments made her very difficult to sink. German survivors claim they opened the sea cocks to scuttle her.

          • But you’re completely missing the point 🤷‍♂️🤦‍♂️… that ships have ALWAYS been less than perfect, sometimes with permanent deficiencies and always with temporary issues. But in most cases their crews are still able to make creditable use of them as history proves.

            You’re raising the air-power contribution just exemplifies this further. The Swordfish biplanes flown by the FAA were obsolete, but the crews still managed to inflict serious damage to Bismark despite this.

    • No PR…
      Its personal experience and insight on what living and working on RN warships is like from my early years as a maintainer to my later years as a Warrant Officer system engineer/SME and department manager.
      The amount of OpDef (defect reports) signals from the Weapon Engineers per ship, per year is usually in the 100-200 bracket with more than that on a long deployment.
      Stuff breaks. Some of it is fixable at sea using your own or task group stores. Some isn’t. You can live with the defect, work around it or go alongside to fix it. That is the reality.
      No CO likes to go alongside for defect rectification when they should be at sea. Every option is explored and checked first before that decision is reached.

      Note that I mentioned in peacetime.
      Risk management won’t allow you to cowboy things nowadays. The RN has had people die because corners where cut on maintainance tasks and in peacetime that is not acceptable.
      Hadden Cave… Nimrod… It affected how every branch of the armed forces managed risk against known defects.

      In wartime or conflict then all bets are off and you do what’s needed to make things work and to give OC to the command.
      Last time I checked we are not at war.

    • A Pilot of a Merlin a few years Ago, A KNOB JOCKEY talking ships, YEAH RIGHT ONLY ONE TURKEY MATE, couple of years ago he was RAF

  17. HMS Diamond is rapidly becoming a rough diamond. Why is Diamond breaking down and Defender not?

    Answers on a post card to the Admiralty.

    • That is the one question that should be asked – is HMS Diamond simply a victim of bad luck or are there issues specific to her ,the answer would be interesting.

  19. All ships and boats need regular maintain and things always break down. The sea is a harsh environment, when you consider the dynamic stresses ships have to handle as well as all that sea water your not ever sailing a whole bunch of ships around the world without something going wrong.

    The only real issue with the type 45 ( apart from the intercooler issue) is there are to few for what is needed.

    if your looking at a Carrier battle group that needs 2 as a minimum the rule f three says you need 6 hulls just for that.

    if your then looking at two littoral Response groups they should really each have credible AAW escorts so another 2 hula with the rule of three saying your needing a further 6 hulls total.

    surprise surprise that makes for 12 AAW hulls, I remember that number from somewhere.

    I really hope that in the next procurement cycle for the next AAW ship class is lead by the number of hulls first and foremost. It’s better to have the correct number of reasonable resources that to few very high quality resources. So for me a AAW version of the T26 would seem to be good way forward, build the correct numbers to cover a carrier battle group and two littoral response groups.

  20. ‘The issue is not related to the propulsion and power systems.’

    Almost every comment below disputes this explanation. One even suggests she needs a tug! My best guess is a major computer malfunction.

    The Tyne 45’s are doing a awful lot considering there are so few of them. Off the cuff remarks don’t help ship’s companies morale. I hope they don’t read them. The Coalition government of Cameron, Clegg and Osbourne slashed defence spending beginning in 2010. We have lost indigenous capacity and lack a sustainable national industrial strategy due to incompetent leadership, military as well as political. No one will be held responsible for this.

  22. I have enjoyed reading a lot of comments regarding how the Army procurement process is so bad. At least the Army stopped Ajax, the RN carried on and bought 6 unreliable ships into service at a much greater overall cost, and it would seem the problem is still not fixed…..Standing by to get gripped now 😁

  24. May be the RN should hire a fleet of tugs that could deploy with the T45s or have the Carriers (QE + PoW) tow the T45s around with them so that the T45 do not have to power-up their engines,

    If you try to join the Forces with a dodgy ticker you get told thanks but no thanks, and yet the MoD insisted that the RN accept into service fundamentally floored class of vessel.

    HMS Diamond is supposed to be on the maiden deployment of HMS Q.E. showing off Briton at is best, What a joke!! The Chinese and the Russians will be smiling now!!!

  25. Its remarkable how many whingers there are on UKDJ. We have just sent a carrier strike group around the world for the first time in 20 years – there are programmes in place to both resolve the power plant issues and radically improve the lethality of these ships, and then some knob decides its all am ’embarrassment’. Next time your car breaks down hope the AA doesn’t turn up and cal you an embarrassment.

    • Mikes a Troll, previous avatars being TH, Harold, PierLLM, amongst others but since being caught out he has calmed his pants somewhat and now just comes up with silly snide remarks, like a naughty kid pullin faces behind his mums back!

  26. Right then the article plainly states it’s not down to the engines for the problem at the moment. As for calling these ships an embarrassment,the generators have been identified as a problem and is being fixed,as far as I can see only one inter cooler has failed. Has anyone of you slagging the ships off ever served on one?
    It looks to me as if they are very much working as advertised at the moment.

    • Hello Jacko,
      Well you could not have done a lot of work on one as you don’t do too much tied up along side waiting for BAE to sort out the problems.
      The long and the short of it is that the T45s should have been fixed on the slips when the problem was identified, but the RN was forced to accept into service faulty equipment knowing that if the T45s ever did get in to a real war they are likely to fail. I just wonder in these years of the blame game how the MoD would stack up in a court of law if a T45 did actually brake down under fire and as a result suffered casualties.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here