HMS Defender, a Type 45 Destroyer, is serving as the flagship of the US Sixth Fleet’s ‘Task Force 64’.

According to a Royal Navy news release, CTF 64 “deals in defending against attacks by missiles and fighter jets”. More specifically, CTF-64 is responsible for the planning and execution of maritime Integrated Air and Missile Defense in the Sixth Fleet Area of Operations, shown below.

“The Type 45 destroyer has powerful, cutting-edge sensors and Sea Viper missiles that counter threats and can knock moving targets out of the sky from up to 70 miles away, making her well-suited to duties at the spearhead of the specialist task group. “

CTF 64 commander, Commodore Jonathan Lipps of the US Navy, and his staff are on board Defender to command the group, which is made up of American, Swedish, Finnish and Lithuanian warships, as exercise Baltops 22 begins.

Massive NATO fleet conducts exercise in Baltic Sea

The exercises involve 47 ships, 75 aircraft and around 7,000 military personnel from 16 nations and tests the ability of NATO and its partner nations to safeguard the region and maintain freedom and security of sea lanes, you can read more about that impressive collection of ships and aircraft here.

HMS Defender’s Commanding Officer, Commander George Storton, was quoted as saying:

“It is an honour to have an opportunity to work with allies and partners during Baltops. In the last 12 months HMS Defender has conducted global operations highlighting our readiness to work with international partners from the South China Sea to the Arctic.

Baltops allows us to build on the firm foundation of strategic relationships and to further develop and demonstrate the ability for our ships and sailors to operate in a multi-threat environment while affirming our commitment to NATO and key alliances.

Defender is a world leading air defence ship and will represent the Royal Navy with pride and dedication throughout the exercise highlighting the UK’s continued commitment to maritime alliances and operations.”

You can read more on the role Defender will be undertaking at the Royal Navy website here.

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

97 COMMENTS

  1. We should have minimum 12 of these 45’s

    We can’t afford any losses across our forces.

    What a state we’re in.

    Our tech takes years to build and our industry and unit’s would be worthless if the mad men of this world go nuclear.

    • Going nuclear would render everyone’s conventional kit worthless to be fair. As for numbers – yup, agree. As do most on here, but we are where we are.

      Cheers CR

    • 12, that’s a least £20 billion in todays money just to buy them, then the £125k per day to run each of them that £500m/year for all 12, increasing year on year of course. Not saying we shouldn’t have more but would we use all 12?

        • Where. Having a ship that cost a huge amount to run and build doing anything less than the role its designed for is a waste.

          • Didn’t think the Royal Navy had issues with recruitment. The mud monkeys in the Army that have problems.

            It’s getting back to “join the Royal Navy, see the world.” and not just Gulf & Med.

          • Immigrants perhaps? That’s the one resource that we have plenty of, are already paying for and they are highly motivated to defend tor new country unlike the indigenous lay-abouts.

          • That sort of rhetoric would not be tolerated if said about any other group of people. It is rather sickening it is when applied to the native people of the land.

          • Well said,he’s denigrating the British men&women who are currently serving andin case he’s forgot the war of 40 years ago who were part of the worthless people of this island “as it were”.

          • I wasn’t worthless, and I won’t forget my Oppos who did their duty and didn’t come home too an amazing and ecstatic Return to Pompey by a grateful nation , for a job well done We did it as Volunteers not pass ganged I was proud too do my bit for my Country

      • 3-4 AAW versions of the T31, whilst not as high-end as the T45s would give extra AAW capability. Perhaps build 5, because the T82 will be super expensive so we will likely get 3-4 and they will have to be reserved for the CSG or allies CSGs.
        Would we use them: 1-2 with the CSG, 1 with the LSG, 1 working with our allies carrier or LSG groups, 1 undertaking independent roles elsewhere, 2 in training 2 in maintenance that’s 9 required.

        • Yes, looking at the Polish A140/T31s you can see their AAW/ASuW/ASW potential and not just for exports. We also have to wait for the next cab off the rank, the T32, to see what box of tricks that has and for the T45 upgrades to finish.

        • We will need at least 6 – 8 T45 replacements. You need 2 on station with a CSG plus 2 in transit and some in refit maintenance. Adding ASTER 30 block 1NT to T26 would be a good idea, however as they only have 24 MK41 cells they would only add a bit to longer range defence. The RN should be looking at swapping CAMMS for CAMMS ER. This would give better longer range coverage. We can only hope the RN upgrade T45 with CAMMS ER.

          • I completely agree; but if the T83 ends up being a 10,000 tonne cruiser sized vessel, we will be lucky to get 4: as such a T31/32 based AAW platform would make sense to provide depth….

            The other thing on this subject is that of course the Navy haven’t really had 6 T45s; more like 4 with PIP / people shortages; so 6 is an improvement, and moving to 8-9 as they are replaced would be better still.

          • We have no idea what the T83 will look like, or it’s size and displacement and armament. So it’s pointless speculating at this time. T45 will be around for many years to come.

        • Yes we should have had at least 8. We saw the problems with CSG21 were only one T45 was with the task group for much of its deployment. If we are talking about running two carriers we need more high end AAW ships. 10 or 12 would be realistic. However I suspect we will get 8.

      • I am NOT doubting your knowledge at all, this is just a question. Where does the £125,000 per day running costs come from?

      • Not a stupid post at all. With only 48 missiles per ship and no possibility of at-sea replenishment, at least two are required to support a CSG.
        That’s four of our six needed to support the carriers, leaving two for maintenance and any other duties.

        Twelve may be too many, eight would probably be nearer the mark. Had they been properly kitted out with with an anti-ship/land attack capability, then an argument for even more could be made.

          • Yes. They’re getting additional launch tubes for Sea Ceptor, which means all the existing tubes can be used for long range Asters including some for BMD.

          • All the ASTER tubes will be upgraded to ASTER 30 block 1 and then to block 1NT all these have a ABM capability… not just some for ABM.

          • Yes, but they have been in service for a while now and eight would have been useful over six. Ten would have been even more useful if they had been fitted with their Mk41 silos and TLAM or a long range AShM.

          • The T45 is only now being used for what it was designed for which is an AAW destoryer. The problemis in absenceof a CSG the T45 has been deployed alone so its looked like its needed to be a GCS which it was never designed for. It’s now being upgraded to enhance its AAW capabilities to BMD which is the right thing to do. You could argue the Astutes should have a VLS to increase land attack capabilty rather than making the T45 a jack of all trades. I remember when the T45 deployed for the first time with the USN its AAW capabilities stunned the USN.

          • Bingo! It’s the Astute that needs SLCM capability to allow ships to withdraw further out to sea.

            On the subject of T45 ships, we really do need 10 of that sort of capability, or better. By all means, build workhorses in the T31 aplenty. The issue is you never know when it’s going to hit the fan. While we (the British) have been successful in most ventures since 1815, I don’t see the national psyche able to recover should we suffer a major defeat & lose a carrier. That, against the cost of having it is like insurance, you have it knowing it’s worse without.

        • 8 was the magic number that were really needed/wanted by RN.

          T45 is a fantastic platform and I know a good few people who serve on them who are very proud of them and their capabilities.

          When PiP is done and Ceptor is added they will be very formidable.

        • Like I said stupid post we are not up against much .. And China totally untested troops and equipment and no doubts grossly over hyped like Russia …Russua a joke super power more like a paper tiger . The T45 far better than anything Russia .

          • China and it’s Navy (larger than even the US Navy), most of it new, is not what? Quantity has it’s own quality. No matter how good a T45, how long would it last in an open conflict against a sledgehammer in the form of the PLAN?

          • Yes, I know that. It’s still the same premise.

            When you have a ratio of one ship to forty, the odds are not great.

          • ??? Try doing a little bit of research next time James.

            “They launched a long-range missile,” General John Hyten, the outgoing vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff told CBS News.

            “It went around the world, dropped off a hypersonic glide vehicle that glided all the way back to China, that impacted a target in China.”

            When asked if the missile hit the target, Hyten said, “Close enough.”

            Hyten, who previously called the pace at which China’s military is developing capabilities “stunning,” warned that one day they could have the capability to launch a surprise nuclear attack on the US.

            “Why are they building all of this capability?” Hyten said. “They look like a first-use weapon. That’s what those weapons look like to me.”

            https://edition.cnn.com/2021/11/17/politics/john-hyten-china-hypersonic-weapons-test/index.html

    • Don’t need 12. They are specialised air defence ships whose only real role is being part of a task force escort.

      I’d rather have more general purpose frigates. With some anti bloody ship capability!

    • You could argue that we should have 24, or maybe 48, but when you consider 99 percent of the world’s navy’s would dearly love to be able to have just 1 in their navy’s, only having 6 suddenly doesn’t seem so bad really, does it

    • Steve, One Nuke Airburst ,would produce an EMP burst that would render all electronic systems non functioning might as well return too Sail and muzzle loading Armament, it wouldn’t affect Mad men such as Kim Jong un but he’s the kind of nutter who would do it

    • Fully agree , the navy needs to double the number of destroyers , frigates and subs . Its abysmal the size if the fleet at the moment , and they need arming with proper offensive weaponry not just playing a defensive role .

    • The original plan was for 12. I was lucky enough to see two in build when I flew over Glasgow in 2007 arriving two days before the madman crashed his flaming vehicle into the arrival entrance at Glasgow airport! I often wondered what the other 6 would have ben named-Dreadnought, Donald, Defiant,Dagger, Danger,Daffodil🤔

  2. Interesting to see the US Commander has chosen to site his command team on board a T45. I am guessing that this is as much about routine training rotations as it is about the capability of the T45’s.

    Cheers CR

    • It’s a compliment. The T45 is good and slated to get even better. You could argue the RN has more idea how to spend money than the USN.

      • The RN has managed to get some pretty good kit into service recently and the AD system on the T45’s is a prime example.

        To be fair to the USN they have had some issues with members of Congress sticking their noses into programmes and in effect forcing the Littoral Combat Ship onto the navy. I have read quite a few stories over the years the that USN really does not want these ships and has wanted a new frigate to quite sometime…

        “To err is to be human, but if you really want mess things up wheel in the politicians..!” Just my view on the world.

        Cheers CR

        • Well, democracy is the best system we have come up with…we elect them and fire them. Many of our problems are actually rooted in the British or more particularly English culture which is common to both the politicians and we who elect them.
          “It is only necessary to raise a bugbear before the English imagination in order to govern it at will. Whatever they hate or fear, they implicitly believe in, merely from the scope it gives to these passions.”
          William Hazlett.

          • What ever state our democracy is in it is nothing in comparison to the inherent dangers of self destruction hovering across the pond. Worst thing is we may all be collateral damage if worst case scenario there comes to be.

          • The West needs a strong US. The country is divided against itself. We all accept impositions on our freedoms when we check through airport security on account of a handful of potential terrorists. ( Personally I would use a couple of alsatians to sniff out the bad guys). The US needs to do the same with guns. Sometimes you can be in the right but it’s still the smart move to suck it up and yield.

    • The T45 was also built with the extra facilities needed to host the additional requirements needed for a flagship.

      • That, to me, puts it somewhere between a cruiser and destroyer- which is where I presume the T83 will fit too. Makes sense; the US can afford the Ticos and the Burkes (although interestingly, they’re retiring the Ticos and bringing back a frigate), whereas we have to sort of combine them in one hull. Will be interesting to see how the USN plans to command their squadrons in future, as I understood that Burkes don’t have quite the same C2 spaces?

        • The new USN frigates are essentially to replace the failed LCS programme.
          I believe they are looking to replace the Ticos with a new cruiser design, though it’s possible that they may go for a single design to replace the Ticos and the Burkes. The biggest issue with the latter simply being running out of space for upgrades and new weapons.

          • Constellation class was a great sales result for Fincantieri. Interestingly Constellation is a tad longer than Bergamini; about the same length as T26.
            I don’t know how much power you need for a hypersonic defence weapon but I’ll bet its a lot. Tico replacement and T83 are looking like big ships….Tiger class?

          • You are a bit mistaken WRT the Constellation class being a replacement for the LCS class Sean.
            LCS was never designed to operate in the open ocean but in the Littoral. Part of the reason the ASW module failed was do to a changing requirement going from a bi-static system to a ‘moving’ system, something they were not really designed for.
            The Constellation class is designed as a ocean going escort primarily for AAW/ASW and is really the natural successor to the OHP class albeit some 30 years later.

          • The essential problem beyond their appalling reliability and lack of completing their planned modular systems is the stark fact the navy planners realised some years ago that these ships in particular (but ships of this nature generally) are fundamentally indefensible other than against the most limited of opposition with their limited armament and armour. They are structurally and conceptually not up to the job in almost any conceivable scenario they were designed for, a shocking admission. It was almost laughingly stated that indeed they would need better armed and armoured traditional warships to actually protect them in the role they were supposed to specialise in. Pretty much going from the launch ramp into the scrap yard.

          • I agree, warships, like tanks, are becoming obsolete, a single missile can take out either with little danger to the attacker.

        • Yes, the B3s had enhanced facilities and were often deployed as the flagship of NATO groups.

          B3 T22s were the largest frigates operated by the RN. Some even jokingly referred to them as cruisers! It’s worth noting that while T26/31 are heavier than the B3 T22s, the B3s still come in at over 10 metres longer than T31 and they’re only 2 metres or so shorter than T26. Absolute beasts for their time.

          • I’m pretty sure that’s the way. T23 is just too small and too mission-focused to allow for it. T45 and the capital ships can provide the facilities. I assume T26 will be able to act as flagship with the additional embarked staff when required.

    • Yes, that’s some twisted reporting. BALTOPS is an exercise that tests allied air defence, anti-submarine warfare (ASW), mine clearance, amphibious operations and medical operations. Lithuania is heavy on the MCM mission and would necessarily be under operational control of the CTF, but the wording in the article is convoluted.

  4. My heart swells with pride to read this article. Senior US Navy officers would not have transferred their flag to HMS Defender unless they were confident that the ship and its systems can be relied on. I hope they were properly piped onboard!

  5. OMG I can’t believe it! Four hours gone by and nobody has made gloomy predictions of it losing electrical power and breaking down.
    That has to be a record for this site!! 😆

  6. It’s America’s war, not Nato’s, so why is uk ship leading it? America dragging Britain into its proxy war can only lead to disaster for UK in long term. A nice shiny ship doesn’t look so shiny after a few real missiles have struck it.

  7. What defence have we go from Russian subs firing underwater nuclear missiles causing a massive tsunami which would destroy the British isles.

  8. Its good to see the T45 being used for what she is designed to do. With the future upgrades to the power train, weapons fit and possibly radar suite she will become one of the best anti air platforms out on the seven seas.

    However, with the lack of RN frigate numbers the T45s are being used in situations she is not designed for. They are not warships for an independendent deployment but should be deployed as part of a group. Either as a carrier escort or flagship for a frigate flottilla (two or more frigates). In some ways with the limited number of T45s I am glad that they do have at the moment engine issues as they are not being driven into the ground but have a good 15-20 years of life left in their hulls. So we should be able to get a good spell with them after all the upgrades have taken place and before the introduction of the T83. When it comes to the T83 I am cocerned, we do need more than six AAW ships but can we afford 8-9 T83s? I don’t think we could So possibly settle for 4 T83s as carrier/amphib group escorts and 6-8 T46s which could be based on the Aus/Can variation of the T26 or based on the original design of the T45 with 64 Mk 41s and 8 canister anti ship missiles. If we could get 4 T83s, 8 T46s and 18 frigates T26/T32/T31, the T32s to be based on the Damen crossover combattant, that would mean a 30 ship surface combat fleet. With the two carriers and say three large amphibious ships perferably Dokdo/Canberra type ships then we could have by 2040 a good ballanced all round fleet to deal with most things apart from a superpower. If we base the T46 on either the T26 or T45 then we should save money on the design concepts, tooling etc. A T26 variation would need to replace the forward sea ceptors with Mk41s and an improved radar suite. A T45 variation would need a redesigned power train, replace the Sylver A-50s with Mk41s, replace the 4.5in with either a 5in or 57mm and upgrades to the SAMPSON. All we would then need is to do something with our sub numbers, god even the Aussies are looking at 8 SSNs. I keep thinking if we cannot afford a full nuclear submarine fleet is we should go back to a mixed fleet of SSNs/AIP SSKs. The AIP for home waters/ North Sea/ Norway/ Med operations and the SSNs for the hunting killing. With these numbers the RN could form 8 task groups, two carrier groups with one T83, two T46s, two T26s a Tide, a Fort and a T31 as RFA escort. Three Amphibious groups of a Dokdo type and two T32s, a AAW surface group of a T83 plus two T46s and two ASW groups of a T46 and two T26s.

    Before someone says fantisy fleet, we do seem to be planning the 18 frigates and the T45 replacement. So for a surface combat fleet that is 24 ships, my suggestion is a further six ships but based on designs that we have built or are building thereby saving money. Also reducing the number of T83s from 6 to 4 where we could possibly get three T46s for the price of two T83s. Albion and Bulwark will need replacing in the next 15-20 years, by again using design concepts that have already been built then we could possibly save enough to build three, the ROKS Marado commissioned last year cost $350 million. I’m not sure but I think that German is about to spend an extra £20 billion on its navy alone over the next few years. The extra ships that I am asking for will come in way below that.

  9. 6th fleets impressive.i worry about 2nd fleet .Russian and Russian allied naval Air assets.3rd echelon interdiction communications and otherwise.we don’t really want backfire bombers looking at halifax with “”love in thier eyes and shit in thier pants””tupolevs flying out of Africa constitutes militairy nightmares as does Cuba packing a dozen tu 22s or used as a Russian staging area for naval aviation.i think we need a global technology cap.do we really need another arms race that increases are abilities to launch massive preemptive first strikes followed by massive second strike capabilities???it’s MAD .

    • No we don’t need another arms race, but they are a fact of life. China and Russia turning military exercises inside their borders into territorial expansion outside isn’t something we can just ignore. I’m not sure what you mean by our ability to launch a massive pre-emptive strike. Do we have one? Maybe in cyber.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here