HMS Dauntless has been operating alongside the French Navy during exercise ORION 26, joining the carrier strike group centred on the aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle.

The Type 45 destroyer has been working with the French Air Defence Frigate Amiral Ronarc’h to refine over-the-horizon targeting, integrating her sensors and combat systems with a Wildcat helicopter from 815 Naval Air Squadron. In a post during the exercise, the ship described “impressive interoperability in #ORION2026” as the British and French vessels conducted joint targeting activity.

The French Navy confirmed that Dauntless had joined the Charles de Gaulle carrier group for the exercise, describing the deployment as part of wider Franco-British cooperation.

In a further demonstration of multinational integration, French fleet tanker Jacques Stosskopf conducted a double underway replenishment at sea, simultaneously supporting HMS Dauntless and the Royal Netherlands Navy frigate De Ruyter. The manoeuvre, described by the French as highly technical, underscored the level of coordination between the French, British and Dutch navies.

Exercise ORION 26 forms part of a broader programme of high-end allied training designed to strengthen interoperability, sustain carrier strike operations and rehearse complex multi-domain warfare alongside European partners.

Dauntless is the second of the Royal Navy’s six Daring-class guided missile destroyers, designed primarily to provide area air defence for carrier strike groups. Displacing between 8,000 and 8,500 tonnes and measuring over 152 metres in length, the class is built around the Sea Viper air defence system. This combines the SAMPSON multi-function radar and S1850M long-range surveillance radar with Aster 15 and Aster 30 missiles housed in 48 Sylver vertical launch cells.

The ships are powered by an integrated electric propulsion system driven by Rolls-Royce WR-21 gas turbines and diesel generators, delivering speeds in excess of 30 knots and a range of more than 7,000 nautical miles at cruising speed. A complement of around 190 personnel operate the vessel, with accommodation available for additional embarked staff.

Beyond her primary anti-air role, Dauntless carries a 4.5-inch Mark 8 naval gun, 30mm cannons, Phalanx close-in weapon systems and heavy machine guns. Anti-ship capability is set to transition to the Naval Strike Missile following the retirement of Harpoon. The class is also undergoing progressive upgrades, including the Sea Viper Evolution programme, which will enhance ballistic missile defence capability, and the introduction of Sea Ceptor to replace Aster 15 in due course.

George Allison
George Allison
George Allison is the founder and editor of the UK Defence Journal. He holds a degree in Cyber Security from Glasgow Caledonian University and specialises in naval and cyber security topics. George has appeared on national radio and television to provide commentary on defence and security issues. Twitter: @geoallison
X

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

54 COMMENTS

  2. The French navy actually has a surprisingly light AAW capability considering the capital ships it has to protect ( 4 flat tops)… only 2 dedicated AAW destroyers.. backed up by 2 FREMMs with up to 16 aster 30s and 2 FREMMs with up to 32 aster 30s and those FREMMs don’t have the best radar in the world.. the other 4 FREMMs only have 16 aster 15s… the five La Fayettes and 6 Floréal classes really cannot even defend themselves against significant threats..

    All in all it’s very poor set up, we bitch about the 6 T45s.. but that’s a hell of a lot more than the French have.. add in the fact the T23 have 32 CAMM and the T26 will have 48 CAMM + whatever goes in the 24 MK 41.. you can see the marked difference.

    • They remain the premier European escort force, though. They’ve embraced distributed lethality to a much greater degree than the RN has – every frigate and destroyer can contribute to every mission, be it ASuW, ASW, and AAW. Several of the frigates can also perform land-attack. And, given the relative youth of their force, and the higher number of escorts, reliance on a single AAW ship-class is mitigated, as more frigates can be deployed at a time.

      If the RN could get itself on par with the MN, we’d be in a good place.

      • I would disagree and say that goes to Italy by a long shot.. it’s FREMMS are far better equipped for AAW warfare with all taking aster 30s and the lasted with aster 30NT.. far better radar.. better ASW rotors ( AW101) as well as long range ASW missiles on the ASW frigates..

        All Italian escorts have 76mm super rapids with DARK munitions.. making them more able to sustain high intensity AAW attacks.

        And they have the PPAs now which are arguably going to be as good or better than the new. French frigates.. ( bigger as well)

        They will have 10 FREMM vs 8 7 new PPA vs 5 new French frigates

        Finally they are building the 2 14,000 ton monster AAW destroyers, which will arguably be the most powerful western destroyers by some margin..

        But all in all the RN in the early 2030s will have a very very good fleet 6 type 45s 8 T26s and 5 Type 31s ( with mk41s ) is not to be sniffed at.. and I unlike a lot of others thing the politician headwinds are still in place for a second batch of 5 more T31s which will but the RN back in top spot..

        • Yes I totally agree with your analysis and hope you are correct about the second batch of type 31s it would give the RN just enough mass then they can mess about with the autonomous stuff!

  3. Disregard the continued political immaturity, we and the French, militarily are good, close and well versed partners! Despite the odd war where we all got a bit grumpy, the French lads are decent and up for a scrap!

    • At the end of the day if the UK, Italy and France acted in concert in a war in the 2030s that’s 5 carriers, 12 exquisite AAW destroyers, 44 modern Frigates, 13 modern present generation SSNs, 8 decent electric boats..

      Then you add in 50 frigates and 30 electric submarines from the smaller navies

      Nobody is laughing at that especially not the Russians.

      • Jonathan

        Your reply lacked your usual in-depth analysis, so would you welcome this correction, especially given the current state of the RN SSN fleet?

        Take your numbers and divide by four.

        So that leaves:
        1 – 2 carriers at sea
        3 AAW destroyers
        11 modern frigates
        3 modern SSNs
        2 electric boats

        Which the Chinese probably launch every year… Not sure we should be resting on our laurels.

        • DIMWIT, even the US will only have 3 carriers at sea and ready and they are looking for world wide coverage

          The reality is Europe as a whole has 120 frigates and destroyers the US 90, China about 110 to 120 ( it’s hard to say as they hide their true strength)

          At present the combined European navy’s have greater numbers of warships than China or the US

          And it could if it had the will to order and commission stay at close to parity to China

          The US at present cannot sustain its numbers with its production capability and may drop to 80 in the mid 2030s.

          As it only builds one destroyer and one ssn a year.

          But Europe actually has really got some significant capacity as long as we keep ordering we will be golden

          Germany can actually build 1 7000 warship a year as well as a 2000 ton corvette and a electric submarine every year or so
          France can build 1 frigate or destroyer a year as well as a nuclear submarine every 2 years and a large carrier or amphibious vessel every 6 years
          Italy can build a frigate or destroyer every year as well as an electric submarine every 2-3 years and one large ship every decade as well as a corvette a year
          The Uk as now developed to the point it can build 2 frigates every 18 months as well as a large vessel every 4 years or so and a nuclear submarine every 2 years
          Spain can kick out a frigate a year as well as a 15,000 to 20,000 ton auxiliary every 4-5 years

          So as long as they keep the orders flowing Europe will produce 5-6 frigates or destroyers a year, a nuclear submarine every year and an electric boat a year as well as a very large combatant ( amphibious vessel or carrier) ever 2 years..

          That is plenty to keep us in the game as long as we keep orders going

          It’s the US that has the issue with long term naval industrial capacity not Europe…

          Remember as well we don’t need to go toe to toe with China.. we need to share responsibility with the US for the high north and Atlantic be able to compete in the Antarctic when that comes and be able to fight a peer power group in the mid Indian Ocean.. we can if we wish ignore the pacific.. China and the US can’t and need the majority of their power focused on each other in the Pacific..

          That’s the thing Europe has the capability it just needs the will.. the US has the will but it’s lost the industrial capacity to maintain its will… that is why the IS European spilt is such an issue..

          So as for balance with with China essentially we could cut its access to the western Indian Ocean into the Atlantic and it could cut our access to the eastern Indian Ocean and western pacific…

          As I always said it’s the US that worries me most they need European navies to balance china’s further naval dominance in the Pacific.. but they will not see it and keep pushing Europe away..

          • Thanks, very interesting explanation. We rarely think of the opportunities that would come from working more closely with our European neighbours, many of which have very similar strategic needs to us (and apparently with very similar capabilities).

            Europe as a whole seems in a far better shape when it comes to naval operations than the Americans, who seem to have let their construction and maintenance capabilities atrophy to an alarming level.

            The key, as you highlight, is that we collectively keep building new platforms.

            Ironically, at least when it comes to maritime domain the Americans now appear to have become even more dependent on their NATO allies than in previous years. Not that the current Administration would ever admit it….

          • The thing that is worth considering with a US-Europe comparison also are European Corvettes. They are unlikely to factor in much against China, but even small EU corvettes represent additional missile depth for any European force operating close to home. The Skjolds and Visbys alone represent an additional 90 ASuW missiles that could be launched at an American task group.

            • Yep very good point you have things like the the German Braunschweig-class corvettes 2000 tons of nasty.. essentially a punchy ASuW focused patrol frigate.. Italy is in the process of recapitalising its corvettes.. as will France.. in the 2030. Europe will probably have a good 40 2000 ton nasty surface combatants.. on top of probably 130+ frigates and destroyers…

              • Yup, Bulgaria and Romania are also investing in new Corvettes (although slightly annoyingly both Corvettes are too fat to fit through the Rhine-Main-Donau Canal locks, which, if I was either Romania or Bulgaria and I was ordering a corvette in the sub 160m length and sub 4m draft range I’d make damn sure they where at most 11m wide so that they can move to the Baltic if needed but oh well).

                There’s also the fact that if a Romanian Type 22 Frigate starts chucking 8 Termit missiles towards a target, it doesn’t matter that it’s a nearly 70 year old missile, you still need to fire interceptors at it.

                The real problem from a European Perspective is the prospect of 40+ F/A-18’s showing up over the Horizon and launching the equivilent of 160 anti-shipping missiles at a European Task Group… which yeah Europe might have more surface assets, but that many interceptors? Even with a CAP or a full on sortie to intercept you’ll need one hell of a European Escort Group to soak that up.

                • To be honest I don’t think we really need to worry about the US.. I don’t think they are so daft as to actually pick a proper fight with Europe.. China would be on them like measles through an unvaccinated population if they ever did that… for me the test will be.. can European navies face a Russian navy that has been recapitalised by China… because China can easily build Russia a navy of 50 escorts and 40 SSNs in a decade if it wanted to and can Europe face off a Chinese carrier battle group in the western Indian Ocean or even one supporting an attack on the Falklands ( because I can see the Falklands becoming a geostrategic hotspot in 10-20 years as the Antarctic treaty comes up for renewal/modification… everyone maybe gunning for that UK real estate that gives instant access to the best bit of Antarctica..

                  • We absolutely need to worry about the US in terms of Naval strength, Russia in terms of Naval power will never be a major threat, even if it’s Navy is recapitalised by China (a process that will take a long time), and it gets a 50 Escort Navy, that is a force that in practice is divided between 4 12 escort fleets, that can’t mutually support each-other, without naval aviation, in a nation that has always had a shocking naval tradition.

                    Basically; a recapitalised Russian fleet of 50 escorts would not stand up to a Europe as it is today, let alone one that saw China building ships for Russia and responded accordingly. (And this fantasy of Europe fighting off China is a bit silly frankly, as the only way Europe ends up fighting China is if we get dragged into it by the Americans, and to be clear: we should make it abundantly clear that, with the messaging from America since they ran away from Afghan, they will be on their own if they want that mess).

                    The USA however, if it went to war with us today, would be a massive issue. You might not think America would pick a fight with Europe, but two years ago the idea of a stand off over America threatening Denmark was also unthinkable. The two scenarios Europe *has* to plan for now are; a Land War against Russia, and a Naval War against the USA.

                    • Any significant military confrontation between the US and China is likely to lead to the end of mankind and despite his rhetoric I don’t think Trump or many US politicians (even the hawks) fancy it but that won’t of course stop the competition between the two.
                      As for the U.K. we are already tied to this confrontation because any conflict in the most likely theatre would probably involve the Aussies and no British Government would standby and let them fight without us offering support. France could also become involved with her possessions in the area.
                      Whilst I don’t like Trump I can’t see any military confrontation between the US and Europe because simply unlike China and Russia, Europe is not a nation state but a continent full of countries many with differing views on international relations, which can be readily picked off diplomatically by the US. I see no sign in the foreseeable future of Europe evolving into a nation state that could act militarily as either the US, Russia or China does on the international stage. The limits on EU power during the US tariff negotiations were clear as national priorities weakened the position of the EU who on paper at least could impose on the US painful reciprocal tariffs but blinked first.
                      Of course, Mr Trump has done all of Europe a favour in providing the stimulus for its nations to start to take its defence seriously again and not exist as a dependent on US power. That should improve the relationship between US and the nations of Europe as the balance of military power is more equal than it is currently but that will take a decade to achieve.
                      Hopefully in that time a US President will emerge who shall we say is more ‘normal’ than the current incumbent and we instead of reverting to an unhealthy over reliance on Uncle Sam continue to pursue becoming military independent of the US for so many good reasons.
                      Meanwhile, if Trump wants to take Greenland the best we can do is send a strongly worded email because we have no way of stopping him.

                    • Just because France has possessions in that *hemisphere* doesn’t mean they’ll get involved. And if Trump, or any other US president uses military force to enforce their vwill on Europe, which he has threatened, it will go to war. If he’s willing to threaten it you can’t discount it and have to plan it.
                      The relationship is irreporably damaged. You might temporarily get a more sane US president, but the mask is off and we always will have to plan against it.

                      While the naval imbalance is probably enough to mean we can’t defend Greenland against the US, we absolutely can do more than just send a strongly worded letter. There are 80,000 US troops spread out across the continent in isolated garrisons that can’t mutally support eachother. If Trump wants to take Greenland the reciprocal action should be taking USAEUR’s equipment as a charitable donation and give the US service personnel the “Imprisonment without due process” treatment ICE seems so fond of.

          • If you take into consideration the backlog of European shipyard, it is simply bigger than US backlog and the output per year is also way larger, on par with China. Though the missile output, while still growing, is not good enough. Mining is one of the biggest concern. The other concern is semi conductor, though the opening of Foxcon Thales factory in France tend to reduce this dependancy ever so slightly.
            What worries me the most is the lack of an equivalent to Rapid Dragon Program, for this is real air naval power. Perhaps A321 MPA could be the start of something. This would not be like B21, but we could outproduce anything the Chinese, Russian or American could put in the air, with very long range strike capabilities…

  4. The T45s are getting better what with camm and PIP upgrades but I do wish they had some decent ASW ( T31’s too). Not necessarily top rate but something at least passable, captas 2 or a clip on etc.

    Re the recent AW149 purchase I’d rather spent the cash on more merlins tbh.

  6. Is it time to formally integrate the German, French and British navies, as it appears the only answer to creating a meaningful naval force? By combining the three naval forces, Europe would create a sizable surface fleet and eventually divide into escort, anti-submarine and anti-airborne threats. Britain and France would provide a carrier force as well as antisubmarine, and the Germans could concentrate on submarine/anti-aircraft operations? Combining the three navies would allow for crew exchanges and multilingual integration. The most important aspect would be creating a global force without duplication and the current huge costs that are strangling all three navies at the moment. By the 2040s, Europe could begin to achieve a global surface fleet that could operate independently from the US if required and also increase cooperation and integration with multiple navies such as Australia, Japan and Korea. The nuclear subs would remain independent.

    • If you’re talking about some combined funding/command setup you can forget it, closest you’re gonna get is Nato

      • An integrated French, German and British navy would still be part of NATO and would also coordinate with multiple navies. The advantage of a shared commonised warship design would enable a larger fleet and save huge sums on design and manufacturing complexity. Other navies could also purchase the
        standardised warships if they so desired. Europe is becoming smaller as communications and technology advances at a rapid pace, and the continuation of individual warship designs is missing a significant opportunity to simplify navy forces. Typhoon and F35 fighters are proving to save European air forces large sums of expenditure, and MBTs are the next that should commonise so why not warships.

        • If you look at previous designs, this has been tried and failed half a dozen times, best we can do is use similar weapons and sensors in some cases.

          • It’s also succeded with FREMM, Horizon, and increasingly EPC. Also Arrowhead/IH with Denmark, UK, Poland and potentially Sweden.

            • Id hardly say Fremm suceeded, i cant even think of signle system that is the same between the French and Italian designs, they even use different propulsion. Horizon was an Economic failure and apart from the engine issues on T45, came out with a worse AAW vessel. EPC remains to be seen whether it actually has the wide spread sucess its ambitioned for.

              Arrowhead is not a joint program, were just building someone elses designs with massive modifcations. Same goes for the other navies building it.

              • Sure thing a 22 Ship program “didn’t succede” lol. Can’t have thought very hard because off the top of my head Sylver, Aster, Oto Malerfa 76mm….

                • French plan was for 17, down to 8? Yeh, real good. The Program did not suceed because it was a joint program, it has entirely depended on the nation building them. They cant even use the same damn Radar for the weapon systems, and the French didnt even get the same air defence guidance for their 76mm

                  • “The program did not succed” Cool stoy bro.

                    22 Ships and still in production apparently is a failure.

                    Guess nothing is a success if you put the bar high enough.

                    • You didnt read my comment at all did you. It did not suceed “because it was a joint program”. It was barely joint, as proved time and again, no country with a high end navy has requirements that allign and would allow for a common design.

                    • I didn’t bother reading this comment beyond “You didn’t read my comment at all.” I’m not going to take you seriously if you start trying to claim FREMM is a failure.

                  • Guys heads up; Type 26 is a total failure because the Aussies and Canadians put some of their own stuff on them and didn’t build all the ones they initially were going to.

                    • Well theyre not building T26 are they, and theyve both inflated their costs by setting up brand new shipyards for them. So theyve eliminated any of the advantages of using commonality, hardly much savings in the propulsion system and mission bay.

                    • You heard it here, Hugo claims FREMM and T-26, two of the most widely produced Frigate designs in the Western World are failures. Joker.

                      Oh and apparently the Canadian’s didn’t lay the keel of HMCS Fraser in 2025 and first steel of HMAS Hunter wasn’t cut in 2024….

                      Meanwhile the rest of us can live in reality.

                    • Youre the one saying failure, im just pointing out that there are few if any cases of a truly joint procurement like many like to aspire to.

                    • Hugo:
                      “If you look at previous designs, this has been tried and failed half a dozen times”
                      “Id hardly say Fremm suceeded”

                      You know lying doesn’t work well when we can scroll up and catch you lying.

                    • I never said Fremm was a failure did I, and there are almost certainly half a dozen failed programs other than putting Fremm in the “failure” category.

                    • I just googled “not succeding” for you.
                      The first result for a synonym for not succeding was “failing.”

                      Hope you learnt something about how English works from this 🙂

                    • Dont even know what youre trying to prove at this point? I would absolutely argue the Fremm program resulted in a completely different pair of ships that did not save either country much money by having it as a “joint” program, so jog on.

                    • Too long, didn’t bother to read. Can’t be that important coming from a joker who thinks FREMM and T-26 are failures.

                    • About the only thing they actually have in common lol. And a system that literally everyone else hates and wants to replace or use an alternative. Aster may be decent but slyver is trash.

                    • Yeah see that’s not what I was saying though (also already demonstrated as incorrect but hey I wasn’t exactly expecting an honest reply) was it?

                      Oh well, thanks for proving that reading your replies here fully is a waste of time.

                      Enjoy hitting refresh and presumably trying to throw an insult. I’m rather over your opinion.

    • What about the Italians? Also don’t forget we are already very close with Norway. The rest of the Scandinavians and the Dutch have a lot to offer too.

      • I still believe confining standardisation within the French, German and British navies is the best union in the initial stages of achieving common vessels.

        • The only way they would be common vessels is if we and Germany adopted an all French specification and they lead on everything. Ask the partner nations of France how smoothly the FCAS project is proceeding.
          Collaboration on common weapons, sensors and other systems as currently undertaken is the best way forward but the French are not good partners on large projects, which is a real shame.

        • I don’t see why you think the German Navy would be any more likely to standardise with the UK and France than Italy. Italy and France at least have a history of co-operation with FREMM, Horizon, and EPC. Germany has for a long time focused on it’s own devleopment lines with MEKO based ships and focussing on American made systems (Mk41 with ESSM/SM-2 rather than Sylver Aster combinations).

          • Agreed. The degree of commonality with UK and Italy is greater than the one we have with Germany. It may change in the future. Though, for ship design, most nation prefer to go their own way, for good reasons. France need very long range capabilities (oversea territory) that only UK may look for. Other navy need firepower close to their shore and security concerns. Italy is ok to go up to the Indian Ocean, but in the past not so much. So I guess shipbuilding may remain national. But look where USA are at with fewer design bureau. They failed many projects, the last success was Arleigh Burk. Now they face tremendous doubts about their capabilities…

    • It has been quietly happening for years. Our CSG forays have involved Holland, Norway and Spain. We are hand in hand with Norway and Holland. Frequently exercise with France, Italy and others. A European Navy already exists.

  7. France is deploying the CdeG CSG to the Eastern Med. Presumably several of her escorts will be from other European countries, but there seems no chance that any will be from the UK. The RN has proven to be a busted flush in the current crisis, the cupboard is completely bare after too many decades of defence cuts, and it’s been brutally revealed that “the emperor has no clothes”.

    The big question for me is whether this fiasco will result in the RN getting renewed priority, or conversely will its current ineffectiveness result in a decision to accept that it is now a tier 4 regional navy focussed on UK and north European waters, not a tier 3 navy with some lingering global “blue water” aspirations. Giving up on carrier strike would delight the RAF; the two carriers could be sold (a fire sale £250M each to Brazil and Australia?), whilst several £billion will be “saved” by cancelling the FSS programme, project Vixen, etc.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here