Royal Navy Type 45 Destroyer HMS Daring is set to return to the fleet later this year following a prolonged period out of service for over 3300 days.

In response to written questions from Conservative MP Ben Obese-Jecty, Defence Minister Luke Pollard said the Type 45 destroyer, which entered Extended Readiness in October 2017, is nearing completion of major upgrades.

“HMS DARING entered Extended Readiness in October 2017 and will return to the Fleet later this year following completion of material upgrades including the Power Improvement Project,” he said.

The Power Improvement Project (PIP) is designed to address well-documented propulsion issues affecting the Type 45 class, improving resilience and reliability in high-temperature environments.

British warship passes 3,000 days out of service

Daring was laid down in 2003, launched in 2006, and commissioned in 2009. From keel-laying to commissioning, the process took 2,307 days. In contrast, the destroyer has now been out of service for more than 3,300 days, exceeding the entire time it took to build and bring her into the fleet.

The ship was withdrawn in April 2017 to begin the Power Improvement Project (PIP) and a major refit. The PIP was introduced across the Type 45 class to address known limitations with the ships’ power and propulsion systems. The original WR-21 gas turbines, which included an intercooler unit, had caused reliability issues in warm climates.

Before entering the extended period alongside, HMS Daring conducted front-line operations including a 2012 deployment to the Persian Gulf and Red Sea, where she undertook maritime security and counter-piracy tasks.

The upgrade package mentioned above replaced the two original diesel generators with three larger and more reliable units. For Daring, this engineering programme was combined with a broader refit carried out at the Cammell Laird shipyard, which concluded in late 2022. After returning to Portsmouth in early 2023, Daring entered the regeneration phase. Then-Defence Minister James Cartlidge confirmed in May 2023 that PIP work had been completed, alongside that of HMS Dauntless. Dauntless has since returned to active service, while Daring has remained alongside, undergoing further work. According to defence sources, HMS Daring has now begun crewing ahead of trials.

Perspective

The 3,000-day milestone places HMS Daring’s regeneration period in context when set against her earlier career. From commissioning in 2009 until withdrawal in 2017, she spent eight years in operational service. Since then, she has spent more than eight years out of service. If she returns to sea trials in early 2026, the balance between those two phases will be almost even.

The length of this period is not the result of a single factor. The Power Improvement Project required deep modifications to the ship’s machinery spaces, and this was combined with a major refit at Cammell Laird. After Daring’s return to Portsmouth in 2023, the focus shifted to regeneration: systems testing, certification, and assembling and training a crew for a ship that had been inactive for years. Each of these stages has contributed to the overall timeline.

Across the class, the PIP has been designed to deliver long-term reliability, ensuring that all six destroyers remain capable of fulfilling their role as advanced air defence platforms into the future. Parliamentary statements have noted that no technical issues have been reported with the ships that have already completed the conversion.

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

164 COMMENTS

  1. Some rare good RN news.

    Now how about fitting NSM ‘at pace’….

    ‘At pace’ appears to mean ‘at the pace of a glacier’….

      • It will be whichever is emerging from refit in that window.

        The thing I don’t get about the NSM fit is I’d have thought that the planners would have wanted that tidied away before the SeaCeptor or DragonFire upgrades….

        • I suspect the companies behind the fitout argued that wasnt possible and two completely separate paychecks were needed. Issue is there is no competitor that is able to say we can do it for less or quicker.

          • Absolutely! They have been ripping us off over the last couple of decades and it has contributed to the West’s overall strategic decline.

            • Keep voting in ultra capitalist governments has caused the issue. Too many smaller companies being eaten up by BAe and the like, resulting in no competition. Combined with rare orders making it hard for smaller firms to survive.

      • If RN is laying up Bays etc to meet in-year budgets what do you expect for add-ons like war fighting capabilities?

        One of the reasons that sending RN ships into Hormuz isn’t going to happen is the lack of on board answers to incoming fires that are out of range of the 4.5″ gun.

        Really it is a bit of a joke to not have any land attack or AShM capability on most of the fleet. I get that Sea Ceptor does have as surface to surface capability but even so a medium weight missile is an absolute necessity.

        • Not quite true though. Don’t the T45s carry Wildcat + Sea Venom, a combination that outranges most ship borne AShM missiles?

          • Sea Venom has a 30kg warhead and a range of 20km

            NSM has a 120kg warhead with a 200km range…..so a bit of a different level.

            Sea Vemon also depends on have the cab up which it cannot be 24/7. RN will say ‘risk assessed’ but problems occur when least expected.The advantage of a missile in a tube is that you one button press away from authorising a launch.

            • Like to see them give an extra 10km + range to the Venom’s 20km range. It seems shortish for air launch?

              • SeaVenom is for wrecking fast litoral vessels that mainly rely on gun based and MANPADS based defences. Like the SeaSkua before it, it’s likely extremely lethal in that role and against any remaining Iranian corvettes or fast attack vessels would be unchallenged. Against any blue water surface combatants on the open ocean without terrain to dip in behind when needed this weapon is not useful.

          • Technically, but good luck with getting a helicopter close enough to any ship with defences to actually use sea venom.

        • If there’s enough room between the Aster silo and the bridge could they then look at 4×4 NSM fit out or additional CAMM, maybe a 2×8 or another 4×6 CAMM and just the 2×4 NSM? Considering they’ve missed the opportunity to put 2 mk41s behind the gun make the most of all the space thats there.

          • The old Harpoon rack location is where NSM goes. It was supposed to be 2 x 4.

            You can’t put the rack directly in line as the efflux would fire into the missile opposite which is why they are offset.

            However, you can double stack them but that depends on the rack and deck loading being up to the extra dead weight and dynamic loadings.

            I’d be much happier to see 8 NSM on T45 as that would give a crazy pause for though – even if, in visual range, the 4.5” gun provides answers.

            • The NSM exhaust deflector is quite different being built into the cannister box from the Harpoon. But yes a big concentration there might singe the bridge even snd double stacking could be overdoing it too. lol. Maybe 2×4 NSM on the hangar roof?

        • Good point, depends how it is funded, but as you say if it is out of the operations budget there is a (big) issue

    • Not sure if I’ve missed something somewhere, but why isn’t she coming out of this stupidly long overhaul fully equipped with NSM and CAMM?? Would it not have made sense to do all this at once so she doesn’t get dragged back in for god knows how long a bit further down the line

      • Probably because we are desperately short of ships. An available ‘baseline’ T45 with PIP is very welcome.

        • Paul while I agree it’s much needed, she’s been sitting there for how many years. Could the work not have been done then? NSM was announced back in 2022, and the camm upgrade was roughly announced the same time I think. It’s just a lot of wasted time then and in the future.

          • At one level what you say makes sense, but I can’t say. I assume that there exists a giant Gannt chart covering all maintenance and upgrades and that the skills / resources for NSM and CAMM installation on Daring are unavailable, limited or assigned to other tasks: but a crew is available. Above my pay grade really.

            • I fear with a peacetime mindset the powers that be take every opportunity to not have these ships actually serving their purpose and thus costing a lot, wearing out machinery and creating crewing difficulties, but I may just be a cynical bstard.

              • I suspect they are juggling things as best they can but are starting from a low base and are hamstrung by skills and resource limitations. So I am not surprised to see lots of ‘good enough’ and ‘best endeavours’ decisions. Complete the T45 PIP upgrades and get Glasgow, Cardiff, Venturer and Active in service and things look a lot different.

                • Agreed but the escort fleet numbers i strongly suspect will fall yet further because the remaining Type 23s are going to go out of service before replacements are available.
                  I am expecting to see Type 23s being notionally in service but not venturing very far from home if at all, which will put a lot of pressure on the Type 45s and the few new vessels entering service. There is more pain to come and embarrassment, which it seems HMG don’t seem to mind as they take their time publishing the DIP.

                  • I think you have called it right, especially if we do let the B1 Rivers go in 2028; their job might be done by the knackered T23s plus one maybe two recalled B2 Rivers. The blue water navy will be the T45s, the new frigates and any remaining of the stronger T23s.

                    • Now the Waves have been offloaded by the Navy. It didnt take long for us to learn that because there is no RFA tanker now available for HMS Dragon to refresh herself with fresh water at sea she has to go to some harbour to fix the problem by refilling with fresh water alongside.
                      We said we might miss them. Memo to 1st SL. Stop the Treasury selling stuff off prematurely.

      • There are two problems, budgets and people.

        Everything is sliding to the right because defence isn’t properly funded, face facts the is pay rises that Labour agreed when it came into office and the extra things slid into the budget and the inability to get DNO under control ~20% are rising things are under massive pressure. At the same time there is a real shortage of people to do this kind of thing as it pulls resources away from T31 and T26 work.

        There really are not a lot of people qualified to carry out missile installation works.

          • It could well be due to lack of the specialists to commission the kit. Could also be to do a test firing with the specialist techs on board who can set the whole thing up.

            Flip side is: why not work with a close ally.

            Penny pinching is the order of the day as the numbers appear to be absolutely impossible.

            • Honestly, this sounds like a good idea so therefore unlikely to be rolled our en masse. We are committed as part of the T26 deal to industrial offsets of equal value in Norway so might as well start chipping away at that and end up with a properly armed escort fleet in the process.

      • Because the CAAM/Sea Ceptor Upgrade is another complex Refit Juggling Act – Defender and Diamond are having this done currently,Defender should be nearing completion by this years end.Duncan will follow as the last 45 to have PIP,and the Ships that have already had PIP done will have to be recycled back into Dock when suitable for the CAAM work.Dockside Capacity is not endless – there are limits as to how many Ships can be worked on at any given time.

        • PT,
          Provided the requisite funding is available, presume both Dragonfire and NSM mods could proceed during routine maintenance periods, avoiding the delays incurred awaiting major refits? HMS Darling, Dauntless and Dragon would otherwise be awaiting those updates for an extended period (4-5) yrs?

  2. So in service until 2050 and who needs T83?

    DIP should be published soon with… ahem… revised timelines, but, Rachel from Accounts should be well pleased that they have these ”barely run in motors, geezer, with low mileage and low wear and tear…”

    Add in the Norgie buy of T26 which elongates the defence spend and she must be rubbing her hands in glee.

    Meanwhile, bloke from procurement gets brought back into Main Bldg and any fall out from Ajax is nothing to do with him.

    This is not the Civil Service this is Braid and MPs and MPs of all colours.

    • Exactly, I suggest it should be good to 2055.

      Let’s get rid of the vanity Carriers.

      Focus on Frigates, Corvettes and subs please. North Atlantic is our priority as a poor nation not grand standing around the world.

      • BAES will be asking for an infill order of OPVs to maintain a workforce who are proficient in araldite and other adhesives substances, aka glue for the sniffing of, and also rubbing their hands at the thought of knocking off more OPVs that are of, ahem, limited value, other than the value of the bill to the British taxpayer.

        • Even if one T26 rolls out every year from now there still 11 T26’s on order so the yard only has slots coming available in 2036(ish)

          Even if you ordered T83 right now they’d have to generate a new build environment with staff to build in parallel or one of the other yards does the final hull assembly.

          Things us only BAES has done the really complex warships ships and there is zero experience of fitting out T45/26 level ships in Belfast. Rosyth have T31 and QEC level experience.

      • Yes but the carriers are fundamentally going to screw the Russian navy in the high north as they have no answer.. the RN and European navies can act under organic navy air cover and the Russian navies cannot.. this simple fact means they will have a massive uphill battle.. without air a frigate is limited to a 20 mile radius of sea control.

        • Exactly. So many posters still don’t get the sea denial ability of a Carrier and her embarked aviation.
          And the SSN.

          • Helllo mate,

            What a so few people seem to realise is that the mix of a carrier strike group and a couple of SSN’s have complementary capabilities. The SSN’s can threaten Russian subs and keep them from the Carrier group while the carrier’s air wing can keep enemy airborne ASW assets away from the our subs. The whole is more than the parts and that is where the real maritime power comes from.

            Cheers CR

              • True enough, not to mention at least a couple of ASW frigates in the carrier group, an air defence destroyer and possibly a GP frigate to add a bit of mass… And that won’t cover the whole GIUK gap…

          • You don’t need it to make a difference..

            The F35b provides the air dominance that then gives sea control.

            You kill any enemy aircraft so

            Your ASW and ISTAR platforms have free range

            You can see and track the enemy ships over the horizon at long range. you know where they are..

            You shoot down any of their airborne sensor platforms so they cannot track your ships..

            This means you can attack and destroy them while they are blind to you by..

            Long range ship based missiles NSM has a range of 120km

            Sea viper on a wildcat.. essentially because the wildcat knows where the ship is.. it can fly under the radar horizon then launch sea viper with the victim never being able to see it.

            The F35 can carry GBU-53/B StormBreakers that can attack our to about 750miles range.

            What most people forget that a 10 meter high radar has a radar horizon of 15kms so even if the ship decides to radiate ( which is a sure fire way to be detected at very long range tracked and killed) it can only locate other ships out to about 20km…. You own the air your ships and subs can dominate.. the enemy owns the air your ships and subs will be hunted down and destroyed… that’s why carriers are utterly vital to a navy operating beyond its own land based air cover.

              • And how exactly would they do that Grinch.. maybe get a general idea from sonar if they were a ASW ship and the other ship was loud..if the other ship was acting stupid and broadcasting..

                But no to fix you need radar or an air platform..

                  • Education me then… how does aShip that find another ship that’s over the radar horizon.. what magic physics bending sensor are there…

                    Because I only know

                    1) radar limited by horizon
                    2) sonar.. limited to ASW ships as they loiter but still not great for surface vessels due to the really significant impact you get into the surface region of oceans, thermocline issues, wave and bubble clouds, self noise and other environmental issues.. essentially it’s not reliable at all.
                    3) EO/IR… visual horizon
                    4) ESM.. depends on the enemy radiating and it’s a little bit beyond the radar horizon, but only by a handful of miles.
                    5) third party with a higher radar horizon… aircraft or potentially if it’s the US satellite.. but even satellites are possible to get around because the are predictable in their search swaths

                    SO YES air superiority is fundamentally important and the isolated surface action group will always loss to the carrier group that has sea control.. trying to argue anything else is just bollox.

      • Nail on head,Sir….Japan getting into carriers and F35B with their nifty Izumo upgrades.And they not poor so perhaps they buy the Queen’s and the aircraft?Assuming Rachel from Accounts doesn’t redirect the dosh might we realise 7billion perhaps?Get Damen to build us a stack of Batch 3 River upgrades with battle management,plenty Kevlar 57mm,24 Mk41slots,NSM and a Martlet armed Wildcat(lilypadding).Half a dozen of these rocking up will spoil Russia’s day.Even if they are £600M apiece,still got £3bn left to sort some Batch 2 Type 31s

        • We’d save more money keeping the carriers over selling them because they’d be sold under value, possibly under cost, and the money gained would be wasted.

          3-4 30-40,000 ton carriers would have been much better, but the QE class are what we already have, so we should keep them.

          • 3 to 4 40k ton carriers would neither be cheaper to buy or to run and wouldn’t be anywhere near as capable.

            • Not cheaper, but at least one would always be available, and they’d be able to carry 24-32 jets plus some helicopters, which is as much as the QE class ever carries.

              To be clear, I didn’t say smaller carriers would be cheaper, I said keeping the QE class running would be cheaper than selling them given the poor return on investment that would represent.

      • T23s and T42s were THRASHED all around the world, let alone the North Atlantic – please re-read the 3300 days tied up alongside part of the article and reflect on how much time she has been thrashed.

          • True but if it’s well maintained it should not be a problem.. you cannot really do much about the dynamic stress of a hard life.

            Although hull plate loss is hull plate loss no matter what.

            • Hull plate loss can be accelerated by lack of use. It allows bacterial colonies to sit in the weld pits and munch away. It is why it is so important that welds don’t have defects in them.

    • I wondered how this long standing problem was going to be laid at labours door. Yet it’s labour who are increasing budgets and building new ships

      • That’s really not true . No extra ships or any ships that were not in the pipeline already have been ordered by liebour.

        • Because it’s actually irrelevant at present.. all our shipbuilding is working at max capacity.. so any orders over the last year would be irrelevant.. if on the other hand they don’t order any T31 or T32 within the next year then it will impact on possible future ship numbers.

          The big issue I have is the loss of bulwark, that was foolish as bulwark was just about ready to be returned to active service and would have covered for 6-7 years.

          • No, the shipyards are not working at max capacity. They are working at the pace insisted upon by the Treasury.

                • Yes but there are hard limits.. you cannot just make capacity…

                  It takes 5 years to train someone into a technical role.. then another five years to move them to a more senior role.. but while you are skilling people up you have to use the time and effort of people already at the skill level to mentor and train them… so if you try and upskill to many you collapse your capacity…

                  Why do you think the US with all the money in the world and a huge order backlog of both surface and sub surface orders has been unable to achieve any increase in its capacity and output.

          • Talking of Bulwark, how badly off is Albion? Is she totally beyond repair? Asked this before but no definitive answer. Could she at a pinch be regenerated and re-purposed as a bloody great multi-purpose/drone mother ship/
            Argus replacement? Add hangar, 57mm, 40mm/Phalanx’s, Artisan, podded CAMM, plus some new paint. They’re using Lymes Bay in the MCM role in the Gulf which will be interesting to see how all the remote tech goes.

      • May god forgive you for lying!!! Labour are not building any new ships. They were ordered by the Tories. Contracts signed by them. I’ve got no love for any of these corrupt parties, I just don’t like giving credit to someone who doesn’t deserve it! Not that the Tories deserve to applauded for what they did to the military. And I’m still waiting like everyone else to see where this budgets increase is and what it’s meant to be getting the armed forces

      • Only thing major Labour has order kit wise is 23 Helicopters, no new ships nothing else, and this is were the problem lies. Its not their fault the state of Army/Navy I agree but they not seem to be a rush to do any thing, Had a defence Review last year done nothing much since, that is the issue.
        Lots of talk of the threat from Russia, and need to re arm but nothing more than talk and projects, its time see where all this projects are leading and order kit. Seems 2031 is the majic year every thing will be ok by but that date is creeping up and it looks for now as if not a lot is being done apart from meeting, wish lists and things under assesment.
        Its true Labour can not fix 30 years of neglect over night and i do see the green shoots of things on the right path more so with the Army, now its time to get down to ordering kit and stocking up on ammo before time out runs us and we do find our selves at war and not ready for it.

      • What new ships?
        The T26 and T31 were all ordered by the Tories, years late.
        I actually read somewhere the last Frigate that Labour ordered was in 1979!

        • In regards to the ships they essentially have a year of grace.. ordering new T31s now would not speed up or slow progress.. as Buldog will not be laid down until the end of the year and so they have full bay until the end of 2029.. essentially they need another T31 to be laid down in early 2030 then a send in 2031. Steel would need to be cut a year before and long lead items ordered 1-3 years before that.. so for a new frigate to replace bulldog in the bay steel would be cut in 2029 and contract as well as long lead items ordered in 2027…

          So as yet there no impact on the future build rate of frigates 2027 is the year that will tell a story.

            • Indeed I’m not thinking it’s Likely because I suspect the RN has gone down a rabbit hole of small autonomous boats replacing ships..

              It’s just they have a year to see sense and order more T31s before any slowdown of production occurs.

              I don’t know why but the Uk seems to be particularly good at grabbing some random new wiz idea and taking it to the extreme of destruction… like the time in the 1950s it decided manned aircraft were redundant and destroyed the Uk airo industry.

              • I struggle to take the small autonomous craft thing seriously.

                Useful to keeping bases safe and coast waters – out in the oggin not so much.

                Once you have sufficiently large craft having some kind of crew is probably easier. The problem is that this rabbit hole is driven by spreadsheets and not outputs and effectors….

                • Completely agree.. it’s bizarre they have taken a concept that has been proven to work in the littoral and have decided that somehow it will completely change how blue water maritime conflicts are fought..

                  Yes any ship fighting in the littoral may very well need its own set of autonomous vessels.. I could see MRSS depositing a whole little fleet around it when it’s in the littoral..

                  Yes you could have a sensor network.. but actual sea control tasks that takes large crewed warships..

    • Honestly, “Rachel from accounts”, considering almost every single one of the navy and armed forces issues have come from consecutive conservative governments and this is the first to actually talk about increasing defence spending I’d give them atleast some credit, damn right they need to speed things up and do more but come on

      • Nail Head. Talk about increasing…

        ”Come on” Where shall we go?

        The Albions might have served as great mine warfare motherships – or just retained their intended function – please ask the other Allied navies about their plans to retire our capability.

        The hydrographic survey ships could have stepped in to the task of off-shore patrol and interdiction of Russian grey fleet ships.

        Our helicopter order is ludicrous.

        Autonomous systems – bit blah blah at the moment when we need real, proven capability.

        Ajax – let’s take the Braid in overall control of procurement and parachute him into a safe job in Main Bldg when he should have been offered the Mess Webley.

        Should I continue – Labour could be great but they are so off message that they continue to fail when actually they should be presenting as a great panacea for this Country.

        • If the Albion still floats and moves they could fix it up in 1-2 years(?) and keep using it. Lots if spare stuff around. Even sell it much later. What a waste.

          • The problem with Albion she requires a crew 325 do we have enough to crew her? That almost 2 Type 23/45,.

            I know we have retired a lots of Type 23 but Glasgow/Cardiff/Venturer have been allocated their crew and along with shortages in specialist manpower i think we would struggle.

      • I have to agree with you, they at least talk about it and are trying just at a very, very slow pace, If they could move from talking to doing then that would be most welcome.

  3. I think the PIP fiasco shows something deeply wrong with the RN procurement process

    Surely building a couple of hulls and having them fully tested before the rest of the fleet is brought online is a better idea and then the next couple of ships are improved on that and then the next couple are built with further improvements. It might even lead to more hulls being built

    • Welcome to the general consensus.

      The House of Commons Defence Committee identified that the land-based testing for the WR-21 was inadequate, that the test rigs didn’t replicate the high-power density or the extreme temperature swings of the Persian Gulf, and they didn’t run the engines long enough to see the long-term degradation of the intercooler units.
      The MoD chose the WR-21 over the proven GE LM2500 (used by almost every other navy) to support British industry and chase fuel efficiency, knowingly accepting a higher technical risk.
      The fiasco of the Type 45’s propulsion system is fundamentally a story of de-risking on paper vs reality. At the heart of this failure was the 2000 closure of the National Gas Turbine Establishment (NGTE) – Pyestock, arguably the most powerful and sophisticated gas turbine research facility in the Western world – a move that effectively dismantled the Royal Navy’s technical safety net just as it was introducing its most complex engine ever … the Rolls-Royce WR-21. Pyestock was the UK’s premier facility for breaking engines before they reached the fleet. For decades, it enforced the “Naval Marine Wing” (NMW) trials a brutal regime of 3,000 to 10,000 hours of continuous operation in simulated “salt-aerosol” and high-humidity environments. This independent testing was designed to find thermal fatigue and metallurgical flaws that short-term contractor trials might miss.

      When the MoD closed Pyestock to save operational costs and transition to QinetiQ, they essentially traded physical certainty for digital optimism. The WR-21, a complex cycle engine featuring an intercooler and a recuperator, was a radical departure from the simple, proven turbines of the past. It relied on recycling exhaust heat to achieve a 30% fuel saving. However, this complexity created massive ‘thermal shock’ risks.

      Because Pyestock’s ‘hot cells’ were no longer available for independent, long-duration MoD trials, the WR-21 was qualified with only approximately 500 hours of physical testing. The MoD relied on Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) to model how the engine would behave in 35°C water. The simulation suggested the engine would gracefully degrade in heat; the reality was that the Northrop Grumman intercooler suffered a design flaw that caused the engine to perform a catastrophic software “trip” when seawater temperatures exceeded 30°C.

      Without a Ship-Specific Shore Test Facility, which was also cut to save an estimated £80 million, the first time the WR-21 ‘talked’ to the ship’s massive electrical load was on the lead ship, HMS Daring. The result was the infamous total blackout syndrome. Had Pyestock remained open, these intercooler failures and the recuperator leaks (which had been flagged in early 1990s trials but were never fully resolved) would have been sorted on a test bed in Hampshire, rather than leaving a £1 billion destroyer dead in the water in a combat zone.

      The MoD provided the flawed advice, the MoD cut the testing budget, and now, the MoD now has to pay for its initial penny pinching by cutting holes in the hulls to fix it … £160 million. Crazy.

      • Indeed. Pyestock, close by to me. Well done HMG for cutting that and so much else when DRA/DERA was privatised leaving some remaining in DSTL. The RARDE, the ARE’s, the RRE, and so on.

      • Labout Defence Minister (Buf) Hoon insisted on the WR-21 to preserve votes in Rugby and closed Pyestock to save pennies.

      • All of this ‘had’ to be cut to allow MOD to function on a peace time budget whilst fighting sandy wars.

        • We sent out 151 warships trom Scapa Flow and Rosyth on 31/6/1916 to meet and engage the Germans at Jutland. Only HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMAS Australia were in Dock of the Capital Ships and missed the battle. I’m not aware that any ships turned back or broke down.
          As Beatty said then as two of his Battlecruisers blew up and might have said now, ‘There is something wrong with our Bloody Ships’.

  4. “extended readiness” What a wonderful phrase that is. Eight years of doing nothing. So now we have five years to fit NSM, perhaps another five for Dragonfire? Or maybe the other way round. Exciting stuff!

  5. I wondered how this long standing problem was going to be laid at labours door. Yet it’s labour who are increasing budgets and building new ships

    • I hardly think they can take credit for ships already ordered and being built🙄Just take a look at how many ships are scheduled to be laid up/sold by this Govt.

      • Ships reach the end of their lifetime, you think the current government can put a pause on time and the aging process?? It’s only a problem because of decisions made nearly 20 years ago that delayed the next generation of ships, the result being the navy running ships on way beyond the life they were designed for. It ain’t hard to join the dots…

        • No, the big cuts were split between 2010 and 2024 Tory and 1997 2010 Labour.
          Example, the collapse of the RN escort fleet from 35 ships to 23 was Labour, including the 12 T45 to 8, then 6.
          SSN from 15 to 12 to 10 to 7.
          Fast Jet Squadrons from 23 to 12.
          R&D sold off.
          Between 1997 and 2010.
          The only reason the Army was not hit so much was the fact that it was deployed in two COIN wars.
          No political bias here, BOTH parties are to blame. The fact that we were in a more peaceful world ( apparently ) when Labour were in power does not excuse them at all. The ORBAT was set in 1997 for a post Cold War world.

          • My comment was based on the current labour administration being blamed for what the Tories did in the previous 14 yrs. Both parties previously made mistakes on the so called peace dividend, and didn’t plan for the future. Why on earth did they both support the need for two carriers instead of subs destroyers and frigates is beyond me

            • The current admin have increased defence spending aiming for 2.5 percent by next year and 3.5 by 2035 and yes it isn’t enough but the NHS is competing . MOD budget for 25/26 goes to £62 billion. And 73 billion in 2028. Ship building is a stated priority and despite other pressure labour are continuing type 26 and type 31. Unfortunately this means refering (not cancelling) type 83. The sub expansion for 13 attack subs seems unrealistic but it seems this labour admin is trying to rebuild defence. Will the others? Should be cross party support

          • Hi M8, The 8 T45 down to 6 was Cameloon, who justified it by announcing it would speed up the development and delivery of the GCS Frigates, better known as the T26 and 16 years later non have yet been delivered ! 🤥😡
            The Labour (Geoff Loon) cut of 12 down to 8 was on reflection about the right number of AAW Destroyers for the RN tasking as they are infinitely more capable than the T42. It also kept BAe ticking along till the T26 work came in.
            At that review we ended up with a balanced fleet of 8 AAW destroyers and 17 Frigates unfortunately they sold 3 T23s to Chile and kept the last 4 T22 (which were old and expensive to keep in service), so it was half right and half completely barking.
            I think if we had a fleet of 8 T45 and 16 T23 and the T26 had been ordered on time we would all be reasonably happy.

            • Hi mate.
              With respect, that’s incorrect.
              The 8 to 6 T45 was very much Labour’s decision and I screamed blue murder at the DS at the time, Gareth Ainsworth, in 2008.
              Indeed, speeding up the T26 was the excuse.

        • they have not ordered any new war ships, all those ordered where made before they took over. Last war ship ordered under Labour was in 1979.

        • They were left with a budget in 2024/25, which they could have altered. Since this time last year the budgets are Labour budgets.

      • Face it this present Government is an accident waiting to happen if they continue to waste Billions on everything except what really matters. The Navy and Defence. Under the last Government, it was also mostly peace dividend time. This time its definitely not. I cant bare to watch Labour doing squat all.

    • No one has laid it at Labour’s door – unless you remember Jeff Hoon from the noughties who was the complete numpty who came up with the Uber idea of replacing proven power generation with new fangled tech that failed in spectacular fashion leaving modern warships stranded.

      So, yes Labour are culpable for the failures of their predecessors, or would you care to disagree?

      Cutting the order to 6 from 12 should see previous Defence Secs and PMs lined up and shot, if only to encourage the follower-ons and save on pensions payouts for the useless Tw@ts.

      • Is Labour culpability? Hmmmm. Who made the navy and airforce fight for money and subsequently caused the cancellation of both CVA01 and TSR2? Who had a peace dividend the the Berlin

        • Soz, browser operator error lol. Continued…
          ..when the Berlin Wall came down, a moment when the world became a very dangerous place? Who had two aircraft carriers made in their local yard and forgot to make sure we had planes to put on them? Hmmmm. The Tory’s are no better I agree, but they mostly just perpetuated the situation and pointed the finger.

      • Is this how you think Gov. works?
        It’s kinda like a child’s perspective of the world.

        Suggested reading:

        What Does Jeremy Think?” by Suzanne Heywood (2023/2024): Arguably the most important recent book for understanding modern government. It tells the story of the late Lord Heywood (Cabinet Secretary to several PMs) and how decisions were actually made from Tony Blair through to Theresa May.

        “How Westminster Works … and Why It Doesn’t” by Ian Dunt (2023/2024): A sharp, up-to-date analysis of how political dynamics, the civil service, and parliament work—and often fail—on a daily basis.

        “How to be a Civil Servant” by Martin Stanley: A highly recommended, practical guide to how departments are structured and how advice is given to ministers.

        “Instruction to Deliver” by Sir Michael Barber (2007): Explains how Tony Blair created the Prime Minister’s Delivery Unit to fix the problem of policies failing during implementation. It is essential for understanding how governments try to get things done. 

        – Spending, Treasury, and Finance
        This resource explains how public money is allocated, the “spending reviews,” and the role of HM Treasury.
         
        “The Way the Money Goes: The Fiscal Constitution and Public Spending in the UK” by Christopher Hood et al. (2023): Based on over 120 interviews with officials and ministers, this is a detailed account of how spending has been planned and controlled since the 1990s.

        • “What Does Jeremy Think?” is an interesting take on how some of these decisions were arrived at: I’d be cautious at taking it at face value as Suzanne has a very prismatic understanding some of the issues and various commentaries do not accord with my recollections.

          It is, of course, impossible to have the granular detail in a book without it being long and dull: inevitably these are vignettes and so may appear skewed.

  6. Great destroyer and really good ‘resurrection’ news for Easter. With the fleet being so small every ship counts. Let’s hope this is a turning point – a Royal Navy ‘trans lunar injection burn’ 🙂 Next step Glasgow and Venturer.

  7. The navy operate a 2/3rds forward, 1/3rd reverse policy. So if Daring is moving to forward then another ship must be going to reserve. More ships won’t be coming available. There are only six. I think the current problem is the navy is having trouble keeping the forward ships available. The planners didn’t factor in the need to fix and upgrade whilst maintaining the forward numbers. SSN is similar. Too much sunny day planning going on.

    • I think you need to insert one extra word to the 1st sentence ! The navy SHOULD operate.
      Which is the rule of 3’s the problem is you need to be able carry out all maintenance and refit work in 1/3 of the total time available and they can’t so it all backs up and the numbers available get worse and worse.
      For decades they have cut or privatised the support services and to make matters worse if they have a sudden urgent operational requirement they slow payments to those support services to fund it.
      Which is exactly where we are right now ! We just have to hope the injection of extra funding can get the system sorted, personally I’d really like to see some concrete investment to go into much larger undercover refit facilities to replace the present one at Devonport.

  8. Will this even have the mushroom farm fitted? or will she spend a few months at sea then back alongside for months?

  9. It would have been quicker to build a new T45 than refit / repair HMS Daring. Scandalous waste of valuable resources having a ship out of service for so long. Can’t understand why the RN ship / sub repairs take so long.

    • But then what do you do with HMS Darling?
      She still needed to be sorted.
      HMS Daring was out of service for over eight years (roughly 2017–2025) primarily due to a protracted, “first-of-class” the test bed, the ‘guinea pig’ to understand the engine replacement under the Power Improvement Project (PIP).

      Engineering Complexity, it was not a simple engine swap. It required cutting massive holes into the ship’s hull at the Cammell Laird shipyard to remove old equipment and install new high-voltage systems and generators.
      The PIP installation for Daring took over two years, running from 2020 to the end of 2022, (Covid) following a three-year period of being “laid up”. 
      Cannibalization and Parts Shortages were big issue, because the Type 45 class had notoriously low availability (sometimes as low as 17%), Daring was frequently used as a “part donor” to keep other ships in the fleet operational. When other destroyers needed critical components, they were taken from Daring.
      Long-term Effect, when Daring finally entered its own refit, it was missing vast amounts of equipment, requiring significant time and effort to source, replace, and reinstall components, beyond the planned engine upgrade. 
      –
      Delays in “Regeneration” (Post-2022)
      After the PIP engine work was completed at Cammell Laird in late 2022, Daring returned to Portsmouth in early 2023 for “regeneration”. However, this phase took another 2+ years due to integrating the new generators with the existing electrical systems was challenging.
      Retraining and Crewing, the ship required an entirely new crew to be trained on the updated systems after years in a “dormant” state.
      Priority and Resources, the Royal Navy was dealing with limited shipyard capacity and a shortage of personnel across the whole fleet, meaning Daring was not always at the front of the queue for resources. 

      Early Layup and Manpower Shortages 
      Before the heavy engineering work started, Daring was effectively laid up for approximately three years (2017–2020). 

      Prioritizing New Carriers, during this period, the Royal Navy experienced significant manpower shortages. Experienced crew members were moved from Daring to prepare the new Queen Elizabeth-class aircraft carriers for service.
      Lack of Urgency, because the Navy didn’t have enough sailors to crew all ships anyway, there was limited urgency to complete Daring’s refit quickly. 

      Summary Timeline
      2017: Returns from Gulf, enters reduced readiness/layup.

      2017–2020: Laid up in Portsmouth due to crew shortages.

      2020–2022: Dry-docked/PIP engine replacement at Cammell Laird.

      2023–2025: Regeneration/System testing in Portsmouth.

      2026: Expected return to operational duties

      She still requires the integration of Sea Ceptor, DragonFire, NSM and Wildcat helicopter Systems.

  10. A good example of why we should have a continuous build policy and scrap re-fits altogether. Sell a ship after 15 years service and make incremental changes to the base design as and when needed.

    • Which formed the basis of the Type 31 Programme – Build at pace,skip any thoughts of a MLU,then sell/move on those Ships after 15 years and replace with New,makes too much sense.Ms Reeves would not be amused.

  11. Thanks for the info magenta.
    Sounds like a lack of both RN sailors and civilian naval engineers is a huge problem. Unfortunately there is no quick fix for these manpower issues.

    • So, perhaps the longest running Whitehall farce is coming to a close. A shame that Admiral Brian Rix couldn’t have made that announcement while pulling up his trousers!

  13. These ships should last a lifetime given the miles on the clock, though they will probably rot like an Austin Allegro after 50 years (joking I am)

  14. It is good news she is finally coming back.
    Is Geoff Hoon still enjoying his retirement and pension at the moment? I’d love to see him in session at the HoCDSC.
    On the official OSD of the T45, I consider it cobblers. These things often shift.
    Considering it has taken a decade to get a sole T26 to the level she is now, the T83s should be being built already, should they not, to meet that OSD?
    Unless another nice capability gap is incoming.

  15. For me the year of judgement around the labour government and the escort fleet comes in 2027..

    Before this date everything else was set by previous governments.. even if an order for more frigates was made last year it would have made no difference because production rates are essentially set in stone until the end of the decade..

    In regards to the escort ships they essentially have a year of grace before not making an order will impact on production in the early 2030s.. ordering new T31s now would not speed up or slow progress.. as Buldog will not be laid down until the end of the year and so they have full bays at Babcock until the end of 2029.. essentially they need another T31 to be laid down in early 2030 then a second in 2031. Steel would need to be cut a year before and long lead items ordered 2 years before that.. so for a new frigate to replace bulldog in the slip in Jan 2030 steel would be cut in 2029 and contract as well as long lead items ordered in 2027…

    So as yet there no impact on the future build rate of frigates.. 2027 is the year that will tell a story of ongoing lack of will or a government that is trying to rebuild our escort fleet beyond the profoundly inadequate 19 target set by the last sets of Conservative governments.. that they failed to keep to.

      • Not really no, you cannot just turn on industrial capacity.. you can slow it but speeding up is a different fish.. and all indicators are they are going as fast as capacity allows now..

        • Balony, both refits and new builds are being drip fed money by the Treasury which is why they are taking so long.

          • That was the case, not so no they have been importing skilled labour to try and bring up try and bring up the work rate .. what evidence do you have that they are slowing production to fit in year cost constraints ? I have not found any for looking .

            • Inefficient project management, low numbers of workers and delays in getting key equipment due to shortage of money.

              All evidenced by pathetic delivery schedule.

    • Agreed. What we need is an “always on” frigate programme. Planned replacement of one frigate per annum minimum. Ring fence the budget so that we fund, for example, a T31/32 as a minimum. Minimum escort fleet size 16/18?

  17. Acktually, word is, HMS Daring is needed straight away to complete some very important mission(s) …

    Therefore it is probably a good thing HMS Daring is almost ready.

      • Bulwark is supposedly in a crappy state anyway; working, but really a junk bucket. It makes sense that it would be sold to Brazil tbh. That said, I can’t see any evidence of ships being actually sold (for really real) on the ground.

        There is a ship being ‘done up’ that is not Daring and is currently in a worse condition than Daring… It has links to Albion but I cannot confirm if it is this ship.

        It may be that there is some confusion/cross over with the new T26s and/or an older T45 (esp. re. PIP). RFA Argus was scrapped so I don’t think they are rescuing that. But yes main point is …

        * Certainly another (additional) boat exists that is being done up just like HMS Daring was. As Daring is a T45, I would guess that it’s probably another T45 going through PIP (but not sure on this).

        In other news… Maybe more Challenger 3 tanks also in the works … Hard to tell if that part of existing order or something new.

        • @Weed killer
          You may mean Hms Albon, which is in a bad state, and the same size as Bulwark?
          Or there is Hms Diamond a T45, which is presently
          in deep refit for PIP and CAMM?

          • Possibly, I think Albion an Bulwark aren’t in the best of state for different reasons.

            I guess Bulwark is working as a boat (just about) whereas it’s questionable whether Albion still works at-all at the moment. Not entirely sure though.

            The last I heard about Albion was the fact they were stripping it for parts. Would be interested to know Albion’s fate and what is happening to it at the moment; if it’s going to get repaired/scrapped or sold.

            Tho maybe getting wires crossed regarding these.

            It could well be HMS Diamond that’s having the work done. Thanks for letting me know. I think this is the most likely candidate. I will see if I can find anything recent in the news about the ship: It would be nice to have another T45 destroyer ready for operation.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here