HMS Dauntless, a Type 45 Destroyer, is continuing training this week.

As part of FOST, the crew will be dealing with everything from fire fighting to warfighting.

From the Naval Bases at Portsmouth, Plymouth, the Clyde in Scotland, and a small team at Northwood in Middlesex, Fleet Operational Sea Training (FOST) provides training for all surface ships, submarines, Royal Fleet Auxiliaries and Strike Groups of the Royal Navy by a dedicated team of experts, led by Commander Fleet Operational Sea Training (COM FOST).

Together with land and air units and with increasing numbers of NATO and foreign participants conducting training under its guidance, FOST has established and maintains a worldwide reputation for excellence, you can read more about the team here.

What has the vessel been up to?

In April 2016, The Independent reported that the vessel had been designated for use as a training ship due to manpower and technical shortages, although the MOD contested this claim at the time. The ship’s status as an engineering training vessel, pending entry into refit, was verified in June 2016.

Dauntless underwent a regeneration refit in Portsmouth in 2019 and then sailed to Birkenhead in May 2020 as the first Type 45 to receive new generators under the Power Improvement Project.

After completing the refit, the ship left the shipyard on June 14, 2022, and embarked on her first voyage in two years.

Now, she’s getting ready to rejoin the active fleet.

Tom Dunlop
Tom Dunlop
Tom has spent the last 13 years working in the defence industry, specifically military and commercial shipbuilding. His work has taken him around Europe and the Far East, he is currently based in Scotland.

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

63 COMMENTS

  1. So it’s not the ship as such, which is taking part in ‘trials’, it’s more a case of a predominantly new crew?

  2. I like the reported in April 2016 the MOD denied it’s a being made a training ship. In June 2016 the MOD said she’s a training ship. How many meetings and phone calls happened in those 8weeks that turned a no into a yes

    • It would seem that, like many other ways of working passage through life, the Royal Navy would seem to be suffering from Availability of Employees to be Learning to be Able Bodied Ratings and Other Competencies for Fighting the Modernised Opponents and/or Other Organised Actors on the Stages of Potential Warfare across the Globe, before those who are successful attend their Passing Out Parades and are then Posted to their First Ships to be Learning On-the-job (Used to be called Working Up for Service Readiness At Sea, such as through HMS Western Isles provided by one Rear Admiral Gilbert Stephenson in the Inner Hebrides and the Little Minch for RN Convoy Escorts Ships and North Atlantic and Russian Convoy Escorts Duties during Second World War),

      Therefore, After Learning On-the-job in the Nowadays Royal Navy, after Training in Stone Frigates, It would seem that All Ranks Aboard Ships are Assessed through the COM FOST Procedures, thus ensuring that the Ships’ Complement are As Fully Prepared As Humanly Possible for the Rigorous Tasks that Might-be Required of them in action.

    • Well, Geoffi, It would seem that I Inputted a reply to yourself earlier (So, It would seem that I Might-be “Comment 10” Unpublished by the Close-of-Play at Witching Hours of Midnight of 21st/22nd March 2023) but, the Moderators would seem to be considering whether HMS Western Isles of Second World War Years is Sufficiently Explanatory for the Purposes of Working Up for COM FOST of the Nowadays Ships of the Royal Navy:

      It would seem “Time Will Tell”

    • Navy Lookout reported that she had to return to HMNB Portsmouth after completion of PIP, for additional sensor and weapons updates. In peacetime, everyone yields to a master schedule…

    • She has Operational Capability (OC)

      The term ” Operational” means nothing. It has no valid definition for a ship or a crew and tells you nothing.

      Fleet HQ knows the training and material state of the crew and vessel. They know what she is capable of doing. She and the crew will be allocated to tasks accordingly. Even POW in dry dock has OC because its crew have been doing assistance to civilian powers checking passports etc.

      So for example if Dauntless was given an SAR shout she could go and do it. A simple task. Search for survivors, firefighting, coordination hub etc…a straight forward tasking.

      Could she go and lead the air warfare component of a CSG? No, because she and the crew has not done the full work up package so she wouldn’t be allocated that task.

      Using your term, Moskova was ” Operational”.
      Using the RNs OC terms she was not at a suitable level for her tasking as from the reports her capability was pitiful in equipment availability and crew training.

    • Would suggest that the re-militarising would task some time. as she would of been stripped of everything they spend some 6 months in Pompey being cleaned so to speak.

    • Daring is in Cammell Laird’s Merseyside shipyard She is currently in dry dock at Birkenhead having the PIP

          • Honestly don’t know the answer to that one, but if I was a betting man, my money would be on Defender being the next T45 to Merseyside.

          • HMS Dragon, as reported in a relatively recent SitRep by Navy Lookout. Believe PIP is part of a work package to be completed at HMNB Portsmouth. Evidently an attempt to expedite upgrade by creating a parallel path to CL.

        • Ah thanks Steven B, you have more up to date info than me.
          If her PIP was successfully completed do you know why she had to be towed back to Pompey??

          • The long range radar had been removed, and probably other parts, as a result of being PIPed whilst part way through a refit

          • She does need her Air Search /ATT or SAMPSON radar for navigation only her navigational radar!

            So I’m assuming the rest of the ship was half dismantled!

          • PIP is the project to remove old 2 DGs and replace with 3 new Power plants, she was towed to CL in a very poor condition due to being layed up for many years in Portsmouth the contact was completed in 43 weeks and on time the next phase of work will be completed in Portsmouth

  5. Anyone know if a Type 45 is included in the 3 ships to get NSM within the first 12months? I only know of HMS Somerset as reported on this site recently.

    Would be curious to know which ships will get NSM first.

      • Unfortunately the CAMM upgrade is not scheduled to start until 2026! I would have preferred fitting the Mk41 VLS silos instead but the additional 24 CAMMs can’t be a bad thing, combined with the Samson and Aster upgrades.

        I’m glad the Type 45s are being upgraded and installing NSM packs some serious punch to what is a fantastic platform.

        • Morning David, yes, two MK41s, even one, you could have quad CAMM and other useful missiles, and the magazine slot is already there. Seems silly going for the six pack CAMMs. They could upsize to 8s, then you’d have 32. Anyway, like you say, it’s all promising and good that every T45 is getting this done.

          • Good morning Quentin – I hope all is well.

            The Mk41s offer much more versatility in the load out that can be carried and would give commanders more planning options. The additional CAMMs would suggest the RN still see the Type 45s as specialised air defence surface combatants and not multi role vessels.

          • It’s been a bit of a rant of mine and others but I’ll try not carry on too much. My basic gripe is if these T45s were originally designed to do more then they they should/could be given the means to do even more alongside their AAW role speciality. If I can misquote, to be “a Jack of many trades and an absolute master in one!”. Lol 😁

          • But the space still exists and it will likely get 8 NSM as well given the stated purchase numbers.

          • And with the T32/83 seemingly years away, why not maximise these T45s more for their next 15 years of service life?
            The RAN downhere is also upgrading its three Hobart AAWs with TLAM, NSM and I think SM3/6s.

          • The type 45s have generally had very low service miles on their hulls. They must be in a much better physical state then expected at this time in their careers. Meaning type 83 could be delivered and there being no rush to withdraw type 45 from service. Another way to increase fleet surface warship numbers? Just hold onto type 45s for a bit longer. I think there out of service date could be pushed to the right by 5-10 years.

          • The RAN’s Hobart Class are also just at the beginning of their service life and are already exhibiting some of the growth potential they have to become a useful general purpose maritime platform. The announcement this week of the acquisition of Tomahawk missiles (TLAM) adds to other recently announced upgrades including NSM to replace their current Harpoon AShMs.

            The US has approved sale via FMS of 200 of the latest version Block V Tomahawk missiles (capable of striking moving ships) and 20 Block IV for the RAN’s Hobart Class destroyers. Work is also underway to investigate the feasibility of adding tube launched Tomahawk missiles to the Collins Class submarine as part of their current life of type extension program as a stopgap measure until the first of the Virginia’s arrive under AUKUS where the Tomahawk will be a part of their standard inventory.

            The RAN had the foresight to specify all ‘strike length’ VLS for the Hobarts making feasible upgrades to larger/longer missiles like TLAM and potentially SM3 and SM6 (for an antiballistic missile capability) or vertical launched LRASM. The Hunter Class (T26) are also having strike length VLS fitted so the RAN will ultimately have at least 12 ships able to launch TLAM and other larger missiles.

            The primary constraint on the Hobarts is a lack of magazine depth at just 48 VLS cells, although remembering that the ESSM Block II can be quad packed, so a typical loadout is likely to be up to 96 VLS missiles plus 8 cannister launched AsHMs (104 total).

            The Aegis radar and CMS provides a high degree of interoperability with other pacific navies operating Aegis platforms (US, Japan and South Korea) with the RAN being the second navy after the USN to demonstrate the Aegis systems Cooperative Engagement Capability (CEC) with one ship able to hand off targeting data to another. Meanwhile the planned upgrade to Aegis Baseline 9 (Project Sea 4000 Phase 6) will provide the software for an ABM capability, paving the way for the acquisition of SM6/SM3.

            The Hobart upgrades are ‘baked in’ to the budget through a 6-year $155 million contract with BAE for ‘spiral upgrades’ to the fleet, while a proposal from Navantia to build a further 3 Hobart class AWDs either in Australia or Spain or a mix of the two, is gaining traction. This is partly in response to the threat from China and partly because of ongoing delays and design issues with the Hunter class.

            The final report in the Defence Strategic Review (DSR) commissioned by the new Labor government has been handed to the PM and Defence Minster earlier this month and is expected to announce further defence spending including long range and hypersonic weapons.

          • Good point on not getting rid of the T45s too quickly and complementing the T83s whenever they eventuate!

          • It’s not exactly like they’ve been worked hard. If you spend 8 years alongside there’s a love life left.

          • i believe the quad packed camm is only a theory at present and would have cost a pretty penny. I believe it can be done but no one so far has

          • At least to connect Mk41 to CMS and to get the quad packing cleared…..very non trivial and would involve multiple manufactures cooperating over proprietary IP…..

            Why take those financial risks when a low cost /risk option is on the table that you know works perfectly well?

          • Hi Andy, I believe the Saudi’s have recently adopted quad CAMM in the Mk41s on four of their newer ships and I could be wrong here but they might be manufacturing the CAMM locally too?

          • Using the Mk41 for CAMM would be a waste of slots.

            Mk41 is integrated into BAE CMS whereas the soft launch / individual air ejected version has been and is in service on T23. So there is minimal project risk to that.

            There are very good reasons why you would want soft launch as well so you can respond without the delay of clearing deck spaces etc. Think it a working party was in deck touching up some paint: you have an incoming and need to deal with it urgently. With the soft launch the clear seas as quite small. With a bit launch you need the whole forward deck cleared.

          • I think the Navy should reconsider the siting of the CAMM farm. Instead of merging it with the Aster behind the 4.5″ gun. Use the space between the funnel and the mid-mast. This is currently unused spaced and would not impede the Phalanx training arcs.

          • They would be very exposed up there. It would change the metacentric weight quite a lot to put armoured tubes or an armoured enclosure up there.

            On T23 the CEPTOR VLS was always a VLS and so was armoured.

          • That’s a valid point. Especially as that’s the same deck level as Phalanx, which is at least one deck higher than the Aster farm. But as this area is dead space in the center of the ship. Would adding an extra 4 to 5000kg serious affect the balance. I guess without modeling it would be hard to tell.

            The thought is that this dead space could easily hold 24 or more CAMM canister launchers. These are about 4m long and 25cm square, weighing less than 150kg. So that makes 3600kg for a set of 24. Add the armoured box using steel backed with Kevlar, wiring etc, would the weight be more than 4000kg? Would it be possible to cut into this deck area and sink the canisters down at least one level?

          • Comparing pics of the Type 45 and 26 the solution is obvious,just put the same 24 x CAAM Silo of the 26 in the same place just behind the funnel – weight considerations come into play but the 45 has a broader beam anyway and excess margins by all accounts,you wouldn’t even need to design a new module.

          • Hmme I am speculating wildly but the metacentric would be largely determined by the SAMPSON mast.

            5-10t does sound a lot on a 7kt vessel but it can subtly change the handling in higher sea states.

            I would speculate the handling is tuned to SAMPSON’s needs?

          • They could even put some in top of the hangar if not too weighty and bulky. Might be a bit ugly looking though…😏

          • Always thought that the hangar roof on the T45 would be a good place for a BAe/Bofors Mk3 57mm weapon system. Using a non-deck penetrating carousel magazine.

          • What is a “waste of space” is the current six pack CAMM. Why not make it an 8 pack at least or as an option. The NZ Anzac’s have managed squeezed 2*6+2*4 for 20 CAMM into their one old MK41 space! Quad CAMM doesn’t have to go into as Strike length MK41 just the standard type. The Saudis seem to like it and it beat out the ESSM. There’s quad CAMM 6*4=24 on the Canadian T26s.

        • Fantastic platform? They do have some good kit onboard but the crews are far from as happy or efficient as the those that served on the T42’s which were the true work horse of the fleet. The T45 as all know have had little sea time compared to other classes that is why in part the T23’s are worn out. NO matter what kit you have its the crew that makes the Ship work in the end that truly matters.

    • Seeing as Dauntless is the only Type 45 to have fully completed PIP and is moving closer to operations it would make sense if she got NSM first.

      • Thanks Mike. My son has just finished phase two EW and is now kicking his heels at HMNB Portsmouth. His likely first mount would be a T45 so I was just curious about how long they’re expected to be out of service. That’s a fair bit of time but then I imagine it’s a big job.

        • Hi David ,

          I honestly couldn’t tell you as each ship has its differences and upkeep requirements.
          CL completed the full PIP and re-energised Dauntless in 2 years(which was mainly due to covid restrictions),she then went too PNB for sea trials .
          Daring came to CL dead and went out dead , the contract CL had was just to remove the 2 old DGs and install 3 new ones , its now back in Portsmouth for phase 2 for upgrade .

  8. What a shambles , a naval ship type that can’t be designed to operate in all water temperatures and cost hundreds of millions of pounds to rectify the mistake, seems typical of how our navy vessels are going , very poor image and waste of money , HMS Prince of Wales is another prime example , what’s going on guys who is signing off on the designs nowadays ??

    • It was designed to do so but the kit did not meet the spec in the end as a new power system (which no one else has taken up) was not tested enough to ensure it would do the bizz. Other Navies got new weapon systems but used updated power trains that were tried and tested so had no similar issues. A warship should be promoted on what it can do war fighting not how ‘green’ it is.
      But again now of the T45’s have been ‘happy’ ships when compared to the old T42’s which were worked to death but the crews still kept smiling no matter what. Present class’s of warships in the RN have a far greater demand of power than the ones they replaced and all need to reliable with spare capacity to ensure they work all the time. T45’s have a first class weapon system, second to none, pity about the power train, which was known about with the first of the class and should have been fixed way before now. The RN still has the best, because of those in uniform.

      • The uniform guys shouldn’t have to put up with poor equipment , the RN has functioned for years world wide so the operating requirements should be well documented , how the power plant for the T45 got signed off by the constructor is criminal , clearly no design checks done to clarify minimum operating conditions and identify if any contingencies were necessary . How many operating years have been lost doing the power plant updates across the T45 fleet??

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here