Royal Navy Type 45 destroyer HMS Dauntless recently conducted the first live firing of its 4.5″ gun in seven years.

The historic event was documented by the ship and shared on its official Twitter account.

HMS Dauntless is the second ship of the Daring class. Together, the Royal Navyā€™s six Type 45 Destroyers are among the most advanced warships ever constructed. The vessel had been out of service since 2016 and is now returning to service after refit and work t her power plant.

According to a statement from HMS Dauntless, the initial test firing was a comprehensive exercise that involved operating the gun at various bearings and elevations. This was done to ensure the proper functionality and accuracy of the weapon system.

The live firing was conducted as part of an ongoing training programme for new members of the ship’s boat and bridge teams.

The purpose of the programme is to maintain the high level of operational readiness that is expected of all Royal Navy vessels.

Trials, training and assessment will continue, with the ship fully operational and ready to deploy worldwide in summer.

George Allison
George has a degree in Cyber Security from Glasgow Caledonian University and has a keen interest in naval and cyber security matters and has appeared on national radio and television to discuss current events. George is on Twitter at @geoallison

138 COMMENTS

  1. Is it just me or is that rather underwhelming ? Didnā€™t they design a 155mm upgrade a while back and does anyone still make 4.5 ammunition ?

      • I trckon there are 26 Mk8ā€™s in active ships. But some are in ships over 40 years old (6 Brazilian Niteroiā€™s).
        Just because they are still around doesnā€™t mean they are still good enough.
        We still have 30 32pounders on HMS Victory but Iā€™d rather have a 5ā€ or 155mm in service.

      • Thought so cancelled in 2010, then again the Army never got the 52 calibre 155mm either. Something to do with the ammunition or other,

        • What wasted opportunities and resources (again) and not backing further developments by British industry. Why even they went 4.5″ instead of staying at “5” and using standard NATO rounds with ER options as are now available?

          • The 4.5″ was the logical choice given the medium calibre gun history in the Royal Navy since before WWII.

            The Royal Navy is only moving to the 5″ given the state of the armaments industry and force levels in the UK. It was either BAE or Oto Melara weapons – and BAE do not manufacture 4.5″.

            The 155mm AS90 derivative showed some promise, despite some technical issues, before been axed just as the T45s were coming into service.

        • The problem with the 52-calibre ordnance is it’s sheer length. It’s 1.5m longer and severely affects mobility; it hits things driving x-country and sticks out driving on road.
          The 4.5″ has a longer range because the ammunition is more powerful; a function of 1000s of tonnes of ship being better able to handle the recoil than a land-based ordnance.

          • Which is not why we didnā€™t go with it just like everyone else did, it was Ā£Ā£Ā£ simple as that.
            The AS90 Braveheart turret fitted with a 52 calibre beat the German PZH2000 turret in a Polish project competition.
            Now they are building them in Poland as the Krab which is mounted on a Korean chassis.
            They just ordered more and some are in the Ukraine.

    • Perhaps somewhat underwhelming, yes. I believe in the age of sail RN could fire once every three minutes as an average.

  2. It’s like something out of a ‘Carry-On’ film !
    How did they get the birds nest and cobwebs out of the barrel ?
    Are we meant to actually ‘celebrate’ this event. ?

    • The new MOD/Royal Navy motto is ….’Fitted with but not used ‘…. wonderful. Somehow we are meant to be proud of that, delusion at its best. Coming soon to a defence blog near you the latest production of. …’Ah Cruel TRUTH’ ….the spell binding story of the navy that never fired it’s main guns for 7 years !

      • When ships are non operational or in refit as Dauntless has been they tend not to fire their guns. The residents of Portsmouth or Birkenhead would be a bit alarmed if they did!

      • And yet there are not too many navies in the world who get to take part in multi asset live fire sinkex with LGBs and missiles with the USN at a real target – ex USN Perry Class, which took place just a few months ago.

        So not all bad and not the case the navy has not fired its main guns in 7 years. ļ»æšŸ˜€ļ»æ

        • The point published by UKDJ was -that particular gun on that particular ship hadn’t, quite amazingly, been fired for 7 years – hence my comment with its slightly generic flavour….

        • It was the free fall bombs that were a little concerning there as a stop gap for something more appropriate. That said worth the effort I guess asa one off to test the theory.

  3. What does this say about RN readiness? ā€˜Out of service since 2016ā€™! Is this what we can expect from HMS Prince of Wales?
    Maybe we should buy foreign built ships???

  4. Off topic but apparently MoD are resuming payments to GE for Ajax. Last payment was Dec 2020. This from a report in FT on Thursday – not seen it mentioned on here?

    • I read the same thing and wondered what had significantly changed to the point where they could resume payments. AFAIK none of the problems have been resolved nor do GE even have a plan for remedying them.

  5. Great for her to back into the fleet. Sheā€™s only done a few years service 2010-2016 before being tied up. Practically a baby

    • Hopefully that means when the cockups happen in the type 83 build we won’t be in such a bad situation as the 45s won’t have as many miles on them.

    • How come a major surface unit has been out of service/refit for 7 years šŸ¤” was it that badly built or did we just not have enough manpower to crew it ?

      • My understanding is that repair time is governed almost entirely by budgets, though removing and inserting large objects such as generators is a non-trivial task.

    • Yes the T45s have not really has much sea time. That does give plenty of time for their replacement as I cannot imagine we will see the first T83 until 2040s The yards will be be busy building the T26 and T31/32s until the mid 2030s. So I imaging the T45s will be a good 30 years old+ before they get replaced. Unless the RN goes for something like a T26 AAW deign which would be a wee bit quickerā€¦that has pluses and minus. We still have lo live with that 10 year pause in building any escorts between 2010 and 2020

  6. Main gun? Isn’t that her only gun?
    Somewhat shocking that one out of our mere 6 Destroyers is in refit for as long as 7 years. Haven’t other naval refits been much quicker?
    I agree with Danielle – beautiful ship.

  7. First is, welcome back to the fleet. Second is when is she to get the Sea Ceptor/NSM upgrade. To be honest I would have kept her 12 months more in refit to have the full upgrade package.

    With six years active service she is a relitivly new ship with possibly 20-25 years of service left. With that being the case why not keep her in dry dock for a further 6-12 months for the weapons upgrades and possible sensor upgrades and make her a true Destroyer. I have always been a believer of Adm Fisher, ‘The Royal Navy ‘should always go first class’ and ‘hit first, hit hard and keep hitting’. So if the RN can build a ship that a crew wants to serve on then give the same ship the weapons to hit first and hit hard then you have a winner. Simple really.

    I do have one major issue, numbers. With only six T45s that due to the failure of the powerplant needs to undergo major refits lasting 24 months+, plus the normal repair refits downtime we have at most three ships ready for sea. If we took the PIP refit as the same time needed for battle damage it shows that six T45s are not enough. In times of war both carriers would operate needing four T45s, both amphibious groups would be operational needing a T45 each, thats six. From this number one or two T45s would need refits or repairs. So to have a full operational battlefleet eight or nine T45s are needed.

    So possibly for a future build we need a T83 with 96 Mk41 vls tubes plus 8-16 canister tubes for anti ship missiles plus a type II T26 anti air frigate, lets call it T46 with 32 Mk41s and 24 Sea Captor for anti air plus 8-16 anti ship canister launched. Very much like the Canadian version of the T 26 just replacing the forward Sea Ceptoer with a Mk41 block and replacing the mainmast with mast for a fixed four plane SAMPSON plus a four plane C-Band survellance and target aquisition radar. This Type 2 T26 would have no multi mission bay midships.

    Now comes to the numbers, well a minimum of T83 needed is four but six would be better. For every T83 built then two T26 Type2s would be needed. These would become the fixed carrier/amphibious group escorts. What does that mean, simple the carrier goes into dock the fixed escorts goes into dock. If the carrier goes to sea the fixed escort goes to sea. That means we need three crews to man two groups as one carrier and one LHD will be at sea whilst one is on stand down. With a T26 attached for dedicatd ASW work and a fully equipped T31 to escort the attached RFAs such as the Tide and FSS ships then the Naval Strike Groups would be fully protected. This then leaves numbers of T26s and T31s to protect US-Europe convoys, cover the GIUK Gap or patrol sea lanes. With T26s, T31s, T32s, T46s (my designation) and T83s in the numbers that I wish for would give the RN a surface combat fleet of FFGs and DDGs of 36.

    Is 36 combat ships for an Island nation that depends on imports to survive, when I say survive I mean food, gas, oil not I phones to much? In 1982 we had about 60 combat ships, even then that was not enough. The sea has not got smaller, radars can still see to the horizon if you are coming in at sea level, even the old Buccaneer with its attack path would only be seen on modern radar at 35 miles or about 30 seconds from missile launch outside the radar found the Buccaneer, say 40 miles out to threat identification, turn on weapons systems and engage. Doing the timeing for the radar operater to inform the skipper or WEPs and get the command to engage is about 20 seconds, your now getting close and personnel.Thats not much time.

    I as a communications guy wonder if you could bounce radar signals of the Troposphere much like we used to do in 28 Br Signal Regt NORTHAG 2 ATAF with 2 Squadron Tropospheric Troops.

    Yes I know that is an increase in numbers meaning cost. However, by basing both types on the current T26 hull and a standard radar suite cost should be the same as the batch 2 T26s if not reduced. So the T83 would have no helicopter hanger which would be replaced with the second group of six MK41 blocks as she is a pure carrier/amphibious group escort. The Type 2 T26 would have space for two Merlins and no need for a S1850M mast. So in my ideal world a further minimum of 12 a maximum of 18 ships would be built to replace the six T45s based on the T26 hull thereby reducing build coast. Sampson was as far as I know designed for fixed plane operation so that should not be to expensive. C-band fixed arrays are a standard within NATO navys so again no R&D involved. So it is possible that the bulid cost could be reduced even further on the current Batch II T26.

    Then again I could dream.

    • Hi Ron, short reply if I may as my lunchtime is running out. Been said before, with 10-15 years left in these T45s and post PIP hopefully they will give them a decent missile uplift in addition to the Aster upgrade and the T83s still a long way off.
      Nice that 2×4 NSM will be fitted, but why not 4×4 NSM, maybe with 2×4 FFBNW, 16 is the new 8! CAMM, why not 6×6, 3x6x2 side silos There’s room, not too heavy, above deck. Cherry on top would be 1-2 MK41s in the existing slots. So few ships, surely maximise what you have, force multiply. And a UAV with the Wildcats. We can at least hope for some of these.

    • You probably dont need to be in a graving dock to do the SC upgrade. Its mostly upperdeck /2 deck steel work, not below the waterline stuff. You could spiral it in with a good bit of Project Managing to install it in stages over a number of alongside repair periods if needed.

      As for fixed plate radar. A CEFAR on an Anzac is around 5-8 mil AUS D a plate. They aint cheap and the latest fit has 8!. They also need a massive amount of cooling water to be sent high up the mast to stop the things overheating and slagging themselves. High Power = High Wild heat.
      In the RN the cooling requirement of pipework and pumps on a T45 are to say the least substantial to get the cooling water to the Air Blast chiller units in the b mast.Its a long way up on a T45 to improve the radar horizon for detection. T45 can see a lot further at sea level than any other ship in NATO to detect sea skimmers.

      Every ship needs a hangar. Never ever design a FF/DD ship without it. The USN discovered that with the ABs. ASW and ASuW are critical tasks and having a helo to hunt or pony for ASW or to carry out surface strike is just to important a task to not have.

      As for shooting engagements …in a real shooting threat environment with missiles flying the operator intervenes to stop the engagement not initiate it. It would be in full AUTO mode so detect, allocate a missile and shoot without any user input. Its quick as well . Mere seconds from detect to missile launch. Same goes for CIWS. In auto you stop it shooting stuff otherwise you leave it alone and the Target /Threat evaluation software does its stuff making a threat table and engaging as it needs to

      Ship Availability and Operational Capability should not be an indication for full on warfighting numbers. Most ships alongside but not in a graving dock or refit are at 48-96 hrs notice for sea. They can sail and do their job in under 48 or 96hrs. Even those in refit can be brought out and put back together if needed to sail. Yes their OC may be reduced compared to a contemporary but they will still have OC.
      Dont discount Allied units. If the GIUK gap is the issue then that is a NATO issue. Every man and his dog will be sending FF/DD out to play with whatever Death Star is out there be it a USN or RN CSG. NATO data links (L16,22 etc) share the picture to everyone . You dont need to be holding a contact on your kit to engage it. Thats especially true now that the RN only uses fully active homing AAW missiles. No need to illuminate a target. Shoot the missile and update via its data link the targets position until the missile goes active and homes on its own.

      • Well said. It’s unbelievable the number of times people completely ignore that we’re a member of NATO and we will never repeat never be alone if at war with Russia. But it won’t register with some people it’s something they cannot accept no matter how many times by how many different people it’s explained to them. But the truly depressing part is the number of politicians and senior officers serving and retired who use the same arguments. At least we can hope they at least know they’re talking bullshit.

        • The HMS dauntless is not NATO’s problem. It’s the Royal Navy’s problem. Yes everyone knows the UK can’t fight anyone by themselves anymore. To have a destroyer alongside for 7 years speaks volumes and should to anyone who has a clue. It’s a messy world we live in. This is the UK’s asset to provide to NATO. That it has not been available for 7 years speaks for itself.

          • Want to discuss USN attack subs?
            Tico Cruisers
            AB Destroyers?
            The RN isnt the only Navy with ship repair issues.

            7 years isnt an accurate summation. Remove the time in Refit, 2 years, and the real issue is actually the 5 years where nothing happened with her. As of now, that was then. The issues that caused that decision to put her in extended readiness has past and that shouldnt be an issue for other vessels.

          • Oh dear, not only Brit squaddie socks in your washing you have found a bacon and beans ration pack under the marital bed…..Its ok, im sure your husband bought them off ebay.

          • Thales is the very last name on RN’s Christmas card list. Opinions vary as to whether that is a cause of or a response to the extremely slow rate of progress on R09. There is also a profound disagreement about whether or not the problems were foreseeable – there are of course massive commercial implications riding on the answer.

      • GB do you or anyone else have any idea how much buoyancy reserve the T45 has post PIP ? I know they fitted an extra upgraded Diesel, renewed the 2 existing ones and fitted a new switch room. But that all weighs so is there sufficient reserve for a bigger gun, fixed Twin ASW tubes, NSM, 24 CAMMS silo and maybe a better sonar.
        Just wondering.

        • Lots of reserve left.
          Most kit is relatively lightweight in relation to the actual weight of a ship. Putting new kit onboard above the metacentric height is more of an issue as that affects the stability.

          A 16 cyl Paxman Diesel weighs in at around 14 tonnes…I changed one ( Again!) on a PC a few months ago. Taking that as a rough approximation the new 3rd DG set, switchboard ancillaries, pipes etc is probably going to come in at 40 Tonnes. Its all weight down low which is good.

          As for the items you listed it shouldn’t have a major issue with regards to reserve.

          • Thanks for that GB, Imasked the right person. I just watched a video on the New MTU 4000ā€™s on Dauntless they are beasts. Is the RN going all MTU ?
            Despite all the criticism of CL taking 770 days for Dauntless, Darings PIP took 496 days so it is looking good to get em all done a wee bit quicker than 2026.

          • The sandowns where re engined for the Gensets some years ago . They removed the old CV8 ( Chally engine!) and replaced them with Volvo engines, readily available spares and worldwide support from Volvo trucks.
            Rosyth took an age, months, to do the job on the Sandowns that they had, one at a time. We did the Kipion Sandowns in around 5 weeks each.
            Old out
            New foundations
            New pipework
            New exhausts
            New engine in
            Set to work
            Job done.
            We also tied it in to a maintenance period to get other stuff done.

            No where near the T45 PiP obviously but if you have the manpower and are left alone to get on with it stuff can happen really quickly.

            Particularly proud of that project!

          • Job satisfaction is a rare and much underestimated benefit. Treasure it.
            I have to say looking at what the PIP involved I am not surprised the 1st took that long. I think they essentially converted the propulsion and power system from IEP to CODLAG (hope I got that right as I am crap with Acronyms).

    • I am fine with 95% of your Post, except when you mentioned Admiral Fisher. Dreadnought OK he drove that through and it was a radical development he was instrumental in the reform of officer training and proper recognition of the engineering branch.
      But he is the same person who bulldozed the Battlecruiser designs through, yes they could hit hard, yes they were fast but the lack of armour and the short cuts taken to keep hitting resulted in the loss of 3 ships and their crews (2AB and 1 PO were relatives of mine).
      The insistence on fitting 4ā€ guns rather than 6ā€ despite the advice of his gunnery experts was lamentable but to order the triple 4ā€ mount for his 5 last Battle cruisers was lunacy, it was a retrograde step.
      And his complete indifference to emphasising or funding the proper development and testing of heavy of AP rounds and fuses was damn nearly disastrous.
      Overall his 1st stint as 1SL was pretty good, he brought the RN into the 20th Century.
      But his 2nd was awful and resulted in many backward steps and some simply insane ideas such as ā€œThe Baltic Planā€ which resulted in the shallow draught BCā€™s Glorious, Furious, Courageous. That idea was bonkers in the face of mines, u boats and made Gallipoli look sensible. And then he wanted to build a BC monster HMS Incomparable.
      Although shunned as built (post Jutland) at least Repulse and Renown were OK after major rebuilds.
      IMHO He should have been left on the beach in 1914.

      As for his statement the RN goes 1st Class, pre 1914 we could afford to build the largest, the best and the most numerous.
      Today we can still build 1st class but afford very few. We can afford more numerous 2nd Class and some 1st class. But what I find lamentable is lack of numbers, firepower and sensors.
      Fitting 4.5ā€ instead of 5ā€
      No ASW Torpedoes on T45
      Inadequate sonar on T45
      Gapping capacity after Harpoon ok we will get NSM but should never have happened.
      Not enough F35ā€™s, Merlinā€™s, Wildcats nor Pilots.
      Relying solely on 1st Class SSNā€™s rather than having some smaller AIP boats for the North Sea and Baltic.

      • I’d be a little easier on Fisher, since his naval foresight outweighed any foibles of being human, and thus not actually able to physically see into the future.
        The Grand Fleet i.e. with battleships, scouting cruisers, and destroyer escorts, was the primary counter to peer aggression. On this front we had a finely equipped force under a good verall commander. These combined sent the High Seas Fleet packing due to pretty excellent tactics when brought to bear.
        The original rationale of the battlecruisers was to overwhelm any likely foe encountered in the Empire i.e. by speed and firepower. Though I agree Fisher did think them more suitable for the traditional battle fleet role than others, but armour weaknesses and poor HE practice did not help compared to German design & practice. Fisher had though heavily promoted the 15 inch gun, of subsequent great renown.
        In my view, for what it’s worth:-
        As usual, the reality and fogs of war have a habit of ripping up the peacetime plan, though that does not mean that Jellicoe did not factor that in prior to Jutland. It would appear he still wished to utilise the battlecruisers as a scouting platform, but gave Beatty, bless him (arguably a finer self-publicist than strategist or even tactician) the most powerful, fastest battleships as part of his squadron, albeit still party working up post commissioning.
        Whatever the communication issues that encumbered all commanders at that time, Beatty still appears to have added an additional complication of his own. His brave but hasty headlong at that portion of the HSF sent out for exactly the purpose of catching out a section of the GF, meant he left far behind his Jellicoe-gifted assets, namely the QE’s. When finally able to offer some aid to Beatty, the Class both gave & received great punishment, with of course Warspite opening its illustrious account from then on and throughout the 2nd WW.
        With the Grand Fleet disposition subsquently back on its intended i.e. Jellico’s track, the plan started to come together. With German HSF masterful retreat, and night time, etc, preventing a GF massacre it would seem.
        Rgs

    • I’d far rather see them prioritise TBMD capability for the T45 and ASW sensors and additional CAMM in the T31. Putting CAMM in T45 is just making them better at something that they are already good at

      • Good but they really do need to be better now that things are hotting up. The 48 Sylver cells will no longer contain the mix of Short range Aster 15 (1.7 to 30km) and Aster 30 (3 to 120km). But solely the Aster 30 and possibly some NT (ABM) versions.
        Which means we have moved the defence circle outwards but at the cost of short range missile coverage. Modern AAW relies on a layered defence hence adding fresh short range capability. CAAM is lighter than Aster 15, is a soft launch weapon, has a similar (or better range) and is cheaper per round.
        If we only have 6 T45ā€™s for AAW and they are acquiring ABM capacity they still need to be loaded out to deal with everything else. Otherwise what was the point in building in extra capacity.

          • To be perfectly honest it seems to me that they have got a far better end result than if they had stuck the MK41ā€™s in as originally intended. As you say CAAM is a far more versatile weapon than Aster 15 and has commonality with the Army Sky Sabre.
            And as we are sticking them on T26 & T31 why not leverage the investment.
            IMHO Iā€™d stick some on the QEā€™s and the future FSS as well. My simple reasoning being 6 AAW T45 canā€™t be everywhere and saturation attacks need volume to counter.

          • Uk doesnt really do missiles on carriers. Sea dart came off the CVS it was to much hassle to carry on with it. FOD is a big issue.
            Let a T45 do area defence with T26, T31 doing Local area and Goalkeeper tasking as the Seawolf T22 used to. That lets the carrier carry on with its primary tasking launching aircraft and leaves the air warfare woosh and bang stuff to others.

          • I am a proud Scot and we have a wee saying ā€œeveryoneā€™s oot of step, bar oor Wullieā€.
            Iā€™d take the RN approach and ask if every other Carrier Nation applies ā€œMurphyā€™s first Lawā€ and does mount SAMs (not counting the one in Thailand as I donā€™t think it qualifies these days).
            Nice chat by the way šŸ˜‰

          • Thanks for that, Now I have had a bit more time to think, we have essentially added the entire 24 CAAM of a T31 frigate to a T45 for a relatively small investment. Even a Bean Counter should like this one.
            I dare say the ABM enhancements and Aster 30 block1 (or 2) NTā€™s will not be such a bargain.

          • The ASTER 15s will be reroled with a booster to ASTER 30. The ASTER front end dart is the same for both missiles so double dip in!

          • I know and that just makes even more sense. We essentially changed from (hypothetical as I donā€™t think they were max loaded of the mix) 24 long range and 24 short range.
            To (maybe) 12 ABM, 36 long range and 24 short range.

            Whatā€™s not to like ?

  8. Sun and Daily Mail both reported over the weekend that the UK has agreed a Ā£2bn deal with Australia to build an SSN in Barrow as an interim capability for the Australians until a new next gen SSN design comes online.

    While I wouldnt obsess too much over the details (they say it will be an 8th Astute but it likely would be more a hybrid design) its certainly promising for UK industry.

    • I did not think there was any spare capacity at barrow, to be honest if there was any spare capacity then getting an order for an foreign SSN is a big deal, I donā€™t think anyone else has ever built an SSN for export before.

      • Its likely only agreed at the intergovernmental rather than contract level and wont be announced until March when Australia presents its submarine plan. Australia may even get several options preliminarily agreed in advance so their PM can make a decision from the options officially presented to him. US may also be able to spare one boat for the interim capability, either a refueled older boat or pushing for another Virginia to be squeezed out over the next decade (again utilizing Australian furnished shipyard workers to boost capacity as their main bottleneck is a labour shortage rather than slipways) now that the two US Shipyards are approaching their intended build rate again after falling well behind over the last few years.

        • Being a bit silly here, but if we sell, it’s HMAS Australia, if we buy it back, maybe HMS Australia? Good news and potential for the UK sub industry. Well done if it’s all true.

          • If we have the capacity it makes sense for all involved. Astutes are the best compromise for the Australians even if they would eventually like more flexibility in land attack. Crew size compared to US alternative would be a massive consideration, it would give earlier capability to give Australian skilled workers expertise when the their next gen subs are finally constructed at home and offers an earlier state of the art sub for them to work with. Especially if they get a US Submarine transferred too which is all they would realistically get. Would be a decent compromise a US pre existing sub by 2030 a new build Astute (ish) a bit later and their new (very possibly a 3 way combined design ish) builds kicking in come late decade hopefully. Will generate all round expertise and earlier in service dates before the Collins become junk.

          • Firstly there is no ish in designing a Nuclear Sub.
            Building more Astute’s is a complete non starter, it is like trying to put Concord back into production.

            The Astute hulls, reactors, cores and equipment are all built, they are just being assembled, fitted out and ready for trials. The production facilities cannot be repurposed backwards and are being fully utilised to build the next generation and the new bits do not fit the old hulls.

            If we wanted to build more the decision had to be made @8 – 10 years ago.

            Do you know just how much it cost to re purpose the RR plant here in Derby from producing PWR2 (Vanguard and Astute) to PWR3 (Dreadnought and SSN(R) ?
            I can safely say it was way more than a Batch 1 T26 šŸ˜³

            It has to be SSN(R) and that may just be the Magic Bullet. It will be bigger than Astute, incorporates a lot of the Dreadnought design and have US VLS tubes for land attack. The latter is because the next generation US missiles will not be able to launched horizontally.

    • Putting to good use all those RAN personnel getting trained on the Astute. Is this a 50/50 UK – Australia sub agreement or an outright šŸ‡¦šŸ‡ŗ purchase?

      • If it is fundamentally an Astute and the Australians dont try to mess around installing US systems my bet would be a purchase with an option to sell back; UK would buy it back when the Australians started getting their new submarines and so wouldnt have to worry about operating mixed SSN classes, UK would likely use it to retire the Astute in the worst condition. If the Australians did stick a load of US systems on it you would likely see it be retained by Australia as a training boat.

        For the UK I would expect they would leverage the deal to fund the expansion of Barrow production capacity with another build hall (also then building a few modules for Australia’s new fleet though the bulk of assembly or fit out would be in Australia) with an eye to a more numerous, more quickly built SSN(R) while Australia would provide shipyard workers to be trained up.

        E.g. you might have a stern drive module built in the UK, a vls/accomodation/sail module built in Australia and a bow section with bridge, torpedo room and sonar built in US then all three sections are mated together in Australia.

        • From hints included in the other article that was submitted here in another thread, that scenario would very possibly fit the bill whereby the UK will be more involved in the process than previously suggested where a totally US supply line with only some UK kit was the likely scenario. Building another Astute would also give the option of transferring an existing Astute to Australia at some stage while the new one completes construction so again Australia gets a boat somewhat earlier along with training and maintenance skills built up as that is no trivial matter. I guess we will get to see in a month or is it two, when the plan is finally announced.

    • That sounds a bit odd to me, the lead time for the components takes years, Barrow is full on into the Dreadnoughts and the last 2 Astute’s hulls are in the Shed being assembled.
      And then there is the small issues of a Reactor and core. The PWR2 is out of production and RR is now on PWR3 and it is a very different beastie.
      Also the idea of building a one off hybrid with either a bulged pressure hull (a La early ideas on the B2TC) to take a PWR3 or try and fit in a US reactor just sounds a very, very bad idea. There just isnā€™t the Design Teams to do it, never mind the cost of building a 1 off boat.

      Everyone needs to understand that a modern SSN is the most complicated, high tech piece of machinery ever designed or built. The Space Shuttle doesnā€™t even come close ! And as it has to work underwater safely the design parameters are multi dimensional so adding bits here and there is ā€œproblematicā€ (see Spain -80A) for details.

      Accelerating the development of the SSN(R) would seem a much better use of resources.
      It is slated to have VLS so we stay compatible with the US, so shouldnā€™t be too far off being suitable for Australia. They would probably want a US CMS and weapon fit but that shouldnā€™t be too hard.

      IMHO What would make sense is for the 3 partners to agree a logical glide path of investment, training, technology transfer to obtain an ultimate end result of Australia being able to build their own or a high proportion of them.

      This may sound a bit backward but the 1st thing is to change Australias law regarding Nuclear power because without that they have to buy U.K or US.

      Second step is to build a Submarine operating base that is able to support the Boats, service them and Train crews. So probably need a land based training reactor (with a lead core).

      Meanwhile start to train Engineers, Officers, builders and specialists etc overseas to be able to form the core of a SSN crew and build teams. Imbed them in existing modern RN and USN boats and shipyards.

      Once the new facility is up and running I would forward base an Astute and at least 1 US boat there (lease them to RAN). Use Gold / Silver crews to train RAN and gradually build up to them operating those boats as crews.

      Whilst the support facilities get up to speed we rotate the boats with others.

      Decide how to kick start Australian SSN capacity, so build with either our SSN(R) or US to start off with and then start to assemble pre built components until they can build some bits themselves.
      I just honestly see how Australia could build everything themselves, they are essentially at ground zero. Other than one small scientific research reactor they have zilch nuclear industry.

      UK use economy of scale and payments for design to increase the numbers we have (8) šŸ§

      The Big spannerā€™s in the works are timescales, the remaining lifespan of the Collins class boats and what are they going to do with their Nuclear waste ?

      Who knows Australia may even need to buy some intermediate AIP conventional boats (joint buy of 8 A26ā€™s with the RN ?).

      • Yeah though if they went for the US equivalent of the PWR2 as used in the Virginia which is narrower than the British design it wouldnt be a space issue but an integration one. However people are overestimating the issue of building another one, they are boutique items and more will have been produced than fitted. There is also no intention of Australia developing a nuclear industry to build or support their domestic production. They will be black box systems to minimize legal ramifications of tech transfer and its not likely that even SSN(R) the most advanced in design work of the two would be in service before 2040 with the Australians not receiving the first boat. The Australians are looking at what interim capacity they could operate during the mid 2030’s to mid 2040’s as they built their dock facilities and work up to directly operating their own fleet, even building a new Astute from scratch now would get Australia a boat over 10 years earlier than waiting. The leaks are suggesting we may end up with a common boat with the SSN(R) and SSN(X) programs merged (which will add some years of delay) and a modular construction design with sections of the boat built in the UK and US then shipped to Australia for final assembly and integration similar to Airbus method of building aircraft.

        • Boutique items ! The RR plant here in Derby isn’t a bloody dress shop that can knock up a reactor on spec.

          Due to the way these are built and the absolute exacting standards of the castings, special metals and machining they are hideously expensive. RR builds for the UK MOD do you think they would order more just in case we fancied a change.

          In the UK only 1 is built per boat ordered as they are never changed out. Cores were slightly different as extras were needed for refueling the PWR1 and early PWR2 but due to the new core designs being designed for full life thre be less of that requirment in future.

          There will be no more unless someone cancels Dreadnought the SSN(R) and decides to build a 40 year old reactor design.

  9. The only thing that concerns me about this apparent good news is the time out factor. Does anyone know if the 7 years tied up time would increase the available Hull / Engine lifespan ?
    Because if it did I wouldnā€™t be surprised if some Penny pinching politician decided to delay building the T83 after the T26.
    Sounds fanciful ? Nope that is what happen between Vanguard class and Astutes.

  10. Lots of unnecessary negativity here chaps! The main gist of the story is that she is coming out of being a dockside weed planter and slowly testing her systems and combat readiness to become a bloody warship again! Only good news in this story šŸ‘

  11. The type 45s have had relatively relaxed lives due to all the breakdowns, refits and reserve spells. They have very little miles on the clock so mechanically and hull wise they should be good for a while longer.
    We need to learn from the type 45 programme that 6 air defence destroyers aren’t enough. 12 is a much better number. Fingers crossed the RN will get a decent number of type 83s. Definitely more than 6!

    • Good evening Mr Bell, can we even wait that long for the T83? Mid 2030S! If you want more quantity, maybe its time for an interim AAW T26, as a T46, as someone previously wrote? Maybe 2-3 of those? But the T45 upgrades obviously must be completed first.
      It is good seeing the T45s coming back into the fleet.

  12. Oh you 4.5 gun posters of little faith!

    Some Gunbuster stuff covering a lot of posts from below.

    Every gun from a pistol to a 4.5 has a maintenance regime associated with it. A series inspection by DEFENCE ORDNANCE ASSURANCE SERVICE (GUNS) DOAS (Formerly NOIO BR862 NMER Para 0552 refers)
    is carried out usually every 6 months on mounted guns. All guns are stripped down to component parts inspected/replaced, reassembled and gauged. On reassembly they need to do a test firing.
    To prove the gun and mount safety firing arcs you usually do Max elev, max depression stops, left/right stops checks to ensure the gun wont hit the ships structure. Single shot and burst modes are tested. Whilst doing that you are also testing the ships organisation for Preps for firing ( Maint in date and plug bore passed, witnessed and signed for. Gun then handed to Operators) Ammo accounting and supply from OOQ to User( More signatures and paperwork), Gunners and Loaders drills, Ops room and Bridge teams for shooting and Blind/Visual Safety. Then when its all over handing the gun back to the maintainer , sorting out ammo expenditure and clearing up.

    Now to 155. It was proposed that the Mk 8 could be adapted to shoot 155. It never happened for a number of reasons. Ammo handling would be a major issue. 4.5 is a single round , shell and cartridge in one. Its heavy but manageable to move around in the mag from the deep mag hoist into the 4.5 Gun auto loader/feed ring.

    155…That would be a major issue. 2 part ammo would mean double hoists from the deep mag to gunbay, double the handling manpower, double stroke hoists in the gun from feed ring to gun breach which would slow the rate of fire down considerably. A lot less rounds carried onboard in the mag. extra strengthening needed for the extra recoil forces.

    The hardest peacetime serial is doing firings for say Warfare Officer training and shooting out a deep mags worth of ammo 2-3 times during the 7-10 days on task. It is a lot of work and a lot of Ammo humping not only in the mag but also back alongside where you need to fill up again , sail and repeat.

    4.5 Mod 1 with the now standard Base Bleed rounds is a bloody good gun. Its reliable with great accuracy over its max range. A quote from an USMC ANGLICO Spotter we worked with was “Good shooting, you just put 3 rounds into the same crater” You can fuse Direct, High and Low radar proximity to dig out people in trenches or air burst to spread the love around during NGS. Against surface targets again damage the upperdeck or cause damage inside a target. Against swarm boats, 20 rnds a min fused air burst is going to cause a lot of hurt before they even get close.

    Is the 5 in better? On range yes but not by much. Accuracy and general maintainability I will reserve judgement until I get some feedback from RN Users. The RAN/USN guys I talked to liked it but it did have issues on the Mod of gun they had. The RN is getting the latest MOD 4 I think so it should be OK.

    Right back to mundane stuff now…Computer training for our new management system.

    • As always a fountain of knowledge gut buster.
      The 4.5inch gun is great, hopefully the move to the 5inch will be just as good.
      The big guns do so much more than just naval shore bombardment.
      I like the Italian range of Oto Melara guns mainly for range of shells. 127mm, 76mm.
      They even tried to fit a 76mm onto a few vehicles one being the otomatic. A bit ahead of its time I think. Perhaps it will make a come back for drone defence.
      Another thing about guns I was reading the other day was that the gun fit out on the type 31 was actually decided by giving a set of requirements/situations to contractors and the 3 guns is what fitted best to deal with those situations. It wasnā€™t the cheapest option.

      • I was the level 3 base maintainer for the Oto 76 at HMS Tamar in Hong Kong for nearly 3 years between 93 and 96. My family and I left summer 96 as the final year was singlys only but was back 6 months later on HMS Beaver.

        Its a good gun but if it goes wrong it goes wrong catastrophically. Its built to be very lightweight. Lots of alloys, lots of big holes drilled through stiffeners and parts to reduce weight. Pretty much the whole gun reload and feed system is mechanically tied together. Get an issue with the feed system and you get very very bent bits, debulleted shells and cordite all over the turret…I speak from experience!

        The T31 is an interesting one. 57mm I get but its no use for NGS. 40mm Bofors ok…but you are also going to be reliant on off mount EO trackers. Lose the off mount part and you will lose the system. We shall see how it goes.

    • China and Russia know where to pick some strategic locations (and so do we of course). Just waiting for a China-Russia base lease in South Africa…only 1/2 joshing. I think the West needs to re-engage there more and soon. The current providing relief aid to Syria I think is a good action, demonstrating some humanity and “love for our enemies” and their suffering populations. Gets in their hearts and minds and shows them that we can deliver the soft and the hard power in quality and quantity and at short notice and which is a good counter narrative.

  13. Apart from acting as an engineering training ship, Dauntless has been out of action for longer than the time from the Munich crisis to VE day. Astonishing.

  14. How incompetent can the MOD get? Did they have any seagull nests in the gun Barrel? How much is all this costing the British tax payer?

  15. First time in 7years eh claimed a historic even. I despair it rather sums up the state of our armed services Ammunition shortages as claimed in the press today seem to be justified .
    But to proudly announce the firing is laughable and utterly worrying

  16. On the positive side this means that we are in danger of moving to a point where all 6 type 45s actually work properly. The PIP seems to have been a success. Daring should join Dauntless giving us type 45s you can actually take anywhere.Hopefully experience will allow the remaining T45s to be upgraded quickly.

  17. The 155mm gun project had potential to deliver a hard hitting long range fire support weapon but was a bit of an oxymoron. You surely wouldn’t use a Ā£1billion air defence destroyer to undertake NGS. Makes more since fitting that weapon on a GP type 23 or better yet a type 32 frigate.
    A longer range and arguably more accurate solution might be to fit a navalised MLRS.

    • Blimey talk about overkill a single MLRS rocket costs $150K each. And that isnā€™t the top of the line ones. Which is probably why the US and Germany didnā€™t go down that route.
      A T45 is a bloody big ship to be protected by a Pop gun, it is larger than some old 6ā€ cruisers. A single standard 155mm is $800 and extended range Excalibur is @$47K. Any of these will really spoil your day.

  18. Noticing most of the rather snide comments to the rate of fire.
    It was declared that the process was merely to check/test the various elevations and how true that fire was followed through.
    Does anyone seriously expect an entire fusillade of shells.
    It must also be noted that the gun itself is an addendum to the Type 45s main armament of its complement of sea viper missiles, phalanx and machine guns.

  19. Shouldn’t of had anything wrong with Engines in first place. They where brand new ships of the line. We need more frigates. Destroyers & more UK fleet air arm F35s. RAF needs more frontline Fighter/Ground attack Aircraft. Take Training out of Privatised company hands & put back into RAF hands. More line infantry Battalions making up each regiment.3 regular + 3 Reserve = 1 Regiment. Maybe bring back county regiment historic names.as in main Regiment Name. Royal Irish Rangers. Southerland & Argyle Highlanders or Sherwood Foresters etc. Build off shelf modern tanks under license in UK, Now. Then design and build new 5th/6th generation tank in near future. New 155mm towed Artillery needed. Medium to High Altitude Air defence needed. Back in day it was Blood Hound Missile. As a young person back in late 60s early 70s saw them in fields around RAF airfields during cold war days. Now Europe and free world in Hot War On European mainland. Defence industry should be on war footing & UK Governments Tory/Labour should plan for any eventuality. But with Tory Governments always unprepared, from NHS to Defence. UK has hedge fund manager as PM? = Austerity & Cuts.

    • The RN and RAF seem to have learned how to spend budgets to improve Operational Capability over the past decades.
      The army has shown its self as being incapable of spending its budget in a sensible way. Its spaffed billions up the wall on FRES/Warrior Upgrade/Ajax? Watchkeeper/AS90. Its still using FV 430 family vehicles designed and brought into service in the early 1960s! Yes they have been updated , but has the RAF or RN still got a 1960s era system in service? No.

      So how would you like to protect the UK? ASTER 30? So Sampson radars every 150 miles around the coast and Long range Air search radars every 150 miles. Missile silos every 100 miles so you get some range overlap. Crew it all up, maintain it correlate all the info coming in before deciding to shoot at something….You would bankrupt the country in short order. Bloodhound was for slow high flying Bear and Badger bombers. Nowadays with cruise missiles its probably easier to take the conventional hit on infrastructure and fight through it. Hole in a runway? Fill it in and put matting on it. Its a lot cheaper and easier.

      Get rid of some named regiments . The biggest issue the army ever has is old regimental tie wearing retired Col Blimps writing letters to the press , lobbying MPs and complaining about the horrors of getting rid of their regiment.

      Towed Arty ? Make it wheeled self propelled. Be that 155, 105 ( Which is having something of a renaissance in Ukr) or 120 Mortars. Tanks…Upgrade CH2 to CH3 then you have time design a new tank in house. You then are not reliant on other nations telling you what you can and cannot do with your stuff. Intellectual IP is massively important. Look at the German Leopard issues as an example.
      Let Poland and Germany deal with Heavy Metal in the East. UK should concentrate on Maritime, Air and light medium forces on the Northern Flank and High North.

      As for RAF fast jet training —100% agree it needs sorting out and rapidly.

      The final line about Austerity? Really? The MOD budget ( Let alone the NHS) is higher than ever. Those running the departments need to spend smarter and manage better.

      Someone for instance who agrees to spend 100 quid on a 15mm hexiform rotational compression unit, 80 quid for a 1 Inch paint brush needs to give their head a wobble and instead go to Screwfix. That by the way thats a true dit. The items where in the naval stores catalogue for a long time.

  20. What I believe is more worrying is the back story of the UK defense industry possible unable to manufactory its own large gun barrels? I understand the issue we can no longer make the 4.5″ gun barrel whjich is the same problem I with the 120mm CHARM gun for Challenger 2 etc.?

    The former ROF site in Nottingham used a large vertical forge to produce the 120 rifled barrel. Once the site was closed down by ROF the expertise was lost and we subsequently tried to make the barrels using a horizontal forge on other sites and using SA barrels unsuccessfully?

    For the Army the problem is that they can not replace the barrels once they are worn out after too many rounds (possible 1000-2000?) through the barrel which I understand is one of the drivers for C3 using an new smooth bore German barrel?

    The Navel 4.5″ did have some merits of have a faster traverse and elevation than the 5″ allowing some limited degree of AA

    • From my understanding Barrow has the capability to produce breech blocks and barrels up to155mm. I believe they also refurbish the current AS90 and Chally 2 L30 barrels. So in essence they could licence produce the Rh120 L55.

      The CHARM rounds are still made by BAe in Wales. The main issue for the gun was HESH, as BAe stopped making it. We weren’t buying enough to make it profitable for them. Luckily there’s a manufacturer in Belgium that makes HESH. Though with Chally 2 going to Ukraine, I would expect them to burn through HESH at an alarming rate. Hopefully the Belgium’s can keep up with demand.

      It is possible to put a rifled liner in the L30, but this process is expensive. There are a couple of reasons for going with the Rh120L55. For starters the RH120L44/55 is a NATO standard weapon, where lots of different countries manufacture ammunition for it, thereby making it cheaper to purchase. The second, perhaps more important reason is the the dart length of the armour piercing fin stabilized discarding sabot (APFSDS) or Fin for short. This can be longer, as it uses one piece ammunition.

      As Chally uses two part (3 really) ammunition. Which means the dart has a maximum length, any longer and it starts imposing on the propellent volume. Alternatively you can make it longer, but means it needs more support in the barrel throat. Which makes the sabot longer and may cause problems when it needs to split from the dart.

      The dart length is important as it must be capable of defeating explosive reactive armour (ERA), but also be long enough to overmatch spaced armour. The dart for the original M829 used was 627mm long, then the M829A2 used a dart that was 780mm long. The latest A3 and A4 versions, the dart length and diameter are classified. But we now the A3 included a 100mmm additional steel tip fitted to the end of the dart. This was a sacrificial tip used to detonate the ERA, leaving just the primary armour for the depleted uranium dart to penetrate.

      The length of the dart is in some ways more important than the diameter. If the dart is fired at spaced armour and is too short. The first part of the armour will impart a yawing motion on the dart as it passes through the air gap, making it hit the second part of the spaced armour obliquely, thereby increasing the armour’s line of sight thickness. Making it harder for the dart to fully penetrate.

      With one piece ammo like the M829, you can make the dart longer, whilst supporting the sabot more effectively. But just as significantly maintain chamber pressure from the lost volume by using a more energetic propellent.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here