Royal Navy destroyer HMS Dauntless has returned to Portsmouth after a successful deployment defending Europe’s western coast during Exercise Sky Shark.
The multinational maritime exercise, conducted in the eastern Atlantic, showed off the UK and France’s shared commitment to regional security and operational excellence.
The Portsmouth-based Type 45 destroyer played a major role in the exercise, providing advanced air defence capabilities. This included safeguarding against aerial threats from the French Navy’s Rafale jets and underwater challenges posed by a French submarine.
Alongside French submarine-hunting frigate Aquitaine, Dauntless also defended the exercise group from simulated naval strikes by Dutch and Spanish warships.
Exercise Sky Shark reinforced the longstanding partnership between the UK and France. Commander Ben Dorrington, Commanding Officer of HMS Dauntless, spoke of the importance of this collaboration:
“This exercise underscores the vital importance of the UK-French partnership. By working together in challenging maritime scenarios, we continue to strengthen our ability to respond effectively to shared challenges.”
HMS Dauntless marked a significant milestone during the exercise by successfully completing a Replenishment at Sea (RAS) with the French naval tanker FS Somme. This was the destroyer’s first RAS in nearly a decade.
The successful completion of Exercise Sky Shark reflects the close ties between the UK and France, two of Europe’s leading naval powers.
“ The Portsmouth-based Type 45 destroyer played a major role in the exercise, providing advanced air defence capabilities. This included safeguarding against aerial threats from the French Navy’s Rafale jets and underwater challenges posed by a French submarine.”
Parsing this paragraph….” and underwater challenges posed by a French submarine”…curious about this phrase – is it a hint of a sonar upgrade?
With so few platforms and more T23 sonar sets than T23 hulls transplanting the excess into T45 would actually make sense? Discuss….
It sounds like there was also a FREMM so it may have been split role but any upgrade would be welcome.
It makes the T31 decision look sillier and sillier…
I agree that is the other interpretation of the very woolly language.
I suspect given how few surface combatants RN has now that crewing the sonar is less of an issue and checking out how well it works post PiP is also a thing with the new DG sets which will reduce radiating noise.
Type 31 decision was taken at the end of the Cameron austerity drive, when Dave’s mate George was killing public spending across the board. As I recall it, in 2015 the choices were between 10 Type 26s or 8 Type 26s and 5 uber-cheap Type 31s. I’m not at all surprised that the Navy went for hull numbers. Later capability inserts for the T31s will be possible because we’ll have the hulls, including ASW helicopters and ASW drones, with sonar. Had they gone for the 10 Type 26s instead, we wouldn’t have seen any benefit from the first of the extra two frigates until 2036 (and at one time we thought that might be 2043). At least this way we’ll have extra frigates before the end of this decade, not next nor the one after that, even if they can’t do everything we want from get go.
It will interesting to see what gets selected for the 7-11 light frigate program for the RAN between the Japanese Mogami and German A200 Meko which dimensionally look similar to the T31. No idea why the A140 didn’t make the cut as its been promoted to NZ next door. Something went amiss there.
We cant build them fast enough
It probably has a small ship flight aboard that supported the ASW screen, I would not read to much i into it….although now they only have 8 type T23s it may be that they can crew the station for the bow-mounted medium-frequency Ultra/EDO MFS-7000 sonar.
We don’t really know what upgrades have been made to T45 in their extended refurbishments and upkeep periods.
They have been dry docked so sonar upgrades are possible. It is also possible that it is one of the more functional sets in the same range has been substituted. Or that the existing set has been upgraded – as it can be.
As we discovered with the T23 upgrade program the announced cost of the sonar sets wasn’t a great deal.
The main thing is if they ex-T23 sets fit on the flat heavy sonar mounting plate
I agree that sonar office desk is less of a crewing issue now we have so few T23.
SB, this may prove to be some of the low hanging fruit which the SDR seeks to harvest. Capability improvement for relatively little cost, must be a concept which warms the cockles of even HMG Ebenezer Scrooge’s wizened heart. 🤔😉
The T45 would not make the best sonar platform as the ship is quite noisy compared to a dedicated ASW frigate like T23/T26.
It would be better to up the sonar on frigates. The T45 should vonsentrate on AAW but have a torpedo defence/decoy system.
T45 can now run on rafter DGs with IEP so the power train isn’t that noisy compared to the GTs which are bolted straight to the frames.
Ok it is no T26 but this will be a massive improvement.
Evening SB, any news on the status of the Aster and CAMM upgrades for these T45s? Sorry to rant so early on this, but they have given the T31s four mk41so you got to wonder why not two mk41s for the T45s. You could make the T31s a hybrid mk41s/CAMM farm, even realocate the forward 40mm for the cariers…lol. The missiles are still non reloadable so more shots especially on long deployments would surely be welcome? If just six siloed CAMM why not another 4×6 down the sides for 48?
I’m surprised at how lethargic the CAMM upgrade is as I cannot for the life of me understand why it needs a dry docking to lift a pre fabricated CAMM unit into place. That is a dockyard crane job.
I think you are massively underestimating the complexity..
I’m not sure I am actually.
The CAMM tubes are mounted in a prefabricated insert which sits into the top of what is now a gym and was to have been a Mk41 VLS.
I’m pretty sure it will need some additional raised seatings to cope with the weight of the CAMM system if it had to be flooded for DC reasons.
None of this is super complicated and none of it can’t be 3D laser surveyed fabricated and lowered into place.
It isn’t like it isn’t going into an area made for a VLS! It isn’t a hot launch system so efflux isn’t an issue.
A lot of the usual reasons-why-not don’t apply to this.
The T31 getting missile upgrades are exactly why the T45 is getting the budget option
If the sonar is going to get upgraded then why not go the whole hog and upgrade to a 5″ as well? And all those surplus CAMM…
The T45 was designed to take the BAE 155mm that never went into production.
The 5” has a complex loader system that takes a lot of space.
5” is also hellishly expensive. So I’d say a firm NO to that.
Once NSM is fitted to T45 then I’d change the 4.5” to a 57mm, with the extended magazine, as that would increase the self defensive outfitting as well as offensive punch from NSM.
They could look at fitting 2×4 NSM cannisters to the RN T26s like the RCN and RAN T26s. Personally I’d rather the T45s have the larger calibre forward gun for the range and hitting power. I’ve also thought that T45s look like they could even take 4×4 NSM.
I don’t see a good reason for an AAW destroyer to have a big gun, shore bombardment seems like a big risk for such an irreplaceable asset
Especially with the loss of Albion and Bulwark
I have not heard of any plans to fit NSM to T26 (or T31). I think the expectation is that the offensive weapons will be launched from the Mk 41 VLS.
Before Mk41 was a thing on T31 it was generally assumed NSM would be canister launched.
As NSM will be from T45.
TBH unless Mk41 is magically on T31 #1 NSM will be canister launcher on that.
The greatest danger to a warship is from air-attack, especially an air-defence destroyer. A 57mm for air-defence is more useful than a 5” gun for…? It’s never going to be used for NGS and you’re not going to get in a gunfight with another warship.
I can’t remember who it was who suggested mounting the RCH155mm on the T45s…LOL.
No need to replace the forwards gun there, it’s a non-penetrating mount
Just slap 2 of them on top of the T26 mission bay, on the flight deck of a River, etc. 😎
This really shows the profound mistake made in dropping the amount of AAW destroyers from 12 to 6…of all the platform cuts this was probably the most impactful now.
The reality is the most effective air defence the UK could have is AAW destroyers patrolling key parts of the seas around the UK. If we had all 12 we would not be in so much need of a massive investment in ground based air defence.
1) An AAW destroyer is pretty much resistant to SEAD DEAD, by its nature you would have to expend a percentage of your long range ISTAR ans strike aircraft to both find, track and attack it…which reduces your ability to attack the primary targets even before the AAW does its job.
2) if you look at the key UK military infrastructure its all very close to the sea, within 0-15 miles for most of it.
3) when it’s not being used for home defence it’s great for expeditionary work, supporting allies, arresting drug dealers, constabulary work and disaster relief..AKA it’s not dead money sitting outside a Uk airfield waiting for a war.
I’m always far in my criticism of each government….Cameron did for the frigate fleet, but it was Blair that did for AAW destroyer fleet and that’s very bad news now..
Also we should be far more ambitious in our upgrades for the Type 45 and should be looking to get Aster 30 block 1 NT and not just block 1.
Also I think there is now a case to say we cannot do with only six AAW destroyers and we also need air defence against IRBMs ( which T45 and Aster cannot manage) so if we inevitably going to need to blow 4 billion on increased air defence ( that’s what Germany are spending on Arrow 3 and other stuff) then why not just see if we can buy 3 Burkes with SM3…
If as evidence suggests we may be close to a war in which Russia threatens Conventional IRBM strikes we had best be able to counter those strikes…and being able to send an SSN with 20 cruise missiles into harms way is not a counter to an IRBM strike..
USN is struggling to build enough ships so getting anything soonest is a dream.
If you want a missile barge we have two Albions looking for a use.
They are big enough that a large lumpy radar won’t be that big issue. However, the roll rate won’t be optimised.
Problem is crew!
They’ve already got Artisan so you could theoretically park a lot of containerised CAMM on the decks. Add a 57mm and a couple of 40mm and a hangar and you’ve got a very bloated T31!!
In the end crew can be found, we have 70million people in this country a concerted effort would work.
Seeing as we need a concerted effort now and it’s not happening, I’m doubtful
Destroyers are a very expensive way to provide air defence to the Uk and they are incredibly vulnerable to submarines on their own.
Land based SAMPT/T would be much more effective.
I agree on the Aster 30 NT and I think we need to speed up the block II NT as well.
And a land based system is incredibly vulnerable to sead / Dead. You pays your money you takes your chance..By Russia has a whole lot more strike aircraft and balistic missiles than it has SSNs to chance in the North Sea..infact there is good evidence the Russian navy would have little appetite to send its SSNs into the jaws of western ASW. Where as sneaking within 500 miles into fling some cruise missiles at land based systems…different level of difficulty and risk.
Conducting SEAD across a continent is a capability far outside of Russia’s wettest dream.
Sinking a destroyer with a torpedo or supersonic anti ship missile is very much in their capability.
If they put two mk41s into the T45s could they not then take SM3 and even SM6 which I believe the RAN Hobart’s and Hunter Class will have? With whatever BAE offered the RAN why can’t they build a couple of enhanced T26s for the RN?
Because we can’t afford any more T26?
Yes it could be done, they examined this a number of years ago in the pacific range. T45 could employ SM3 with software upgrades to Sampson and there was space for 16 mk41 VLS that has now been taken by the new sea Ceptor battery
Unfortunately the use of SM-3 requires Aegis at certain Baselines that not even all Burkes have. The Formidable Shield exercise where the Dutch ship participated in an SM-3 shoot seems misunderstood. The Dutch ship identified the target with it’s SMART-L radar, and passed the track info via a datalink to a Burke with the correct Aegis Baseline, then the Burke did the targeting solution and fired the SM-3.
As to SM-6, HMAS Sydney recently fired one. The Hobarts an use SM_6 in anti air and anti surface mode already. They will get Aegis Baseline 9 soon (Brisbane might be getting it in San Diego now) and will be able to use SM-6 for BMD soon as well. The Hunters should have terminal BMD capability via SM-6 from the get-go.
SM 6 is no better or worse than the aster offering, it’s SM3 that’s needed and that is aegis only.
Using ships to fill a ground based air defence requirement would be a ludicrous waste of money and resources.
Surely it must be massively cheaper and a no brainer , to stick the missile launcher and Radar on land . Unless ofcourse they are not made anymore. I dont know if we have a land equivalent
The radar doesn’t have to go with the launcher.
The old fully integrated system arriving on trucks or towed is a last century solution.
CAMM or ASTER just need target data and updates. That can be supplied from any radar over a fibre optic link [FTTP broadband would do provided you know the ping time you can compensate for it].
Well Germany are spending close to 4 billion on Arrow3..so possibly not much. Also arrow 3 will essentially be a non deployable asset, you can deploy a AAW destroyer anywhere..so the extra money you pay gives in the end extra value.
Arrow 3 gives exoatmospheric interception of IRBM and ICBM, which should be the preferred way of knocking out enemy missiles. You hope nothing gets past that, but have things like Patriot or Aster in case it does. But you don’t want these to be your first line of missile defence.