It’s no secret that HMS Dauntless has endured the most issues relating to the widely reported propulsion issues currently found in the Type 45 Destroyers. While a remedy is being worked on and the vessel will eventually return to operations, this will not be for a few years yet.

A parliamentary written question has confirmed what many have feared, that the vessel will not be leaving Portsmouth for some time.

Asked by Douglas Chapman (MP for Dunfermline and West Fife)

“To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, whether HMS Dauntless is being used as a harbour training and accommodation ship.”

Answered by Philip Dunne (Minister of State for Defence Procurement)

“The introduction of Engineering Training Ships is an important component of the Royal Navy’s comprehensive programme to improve training and career development opportunities by increasing training capacity.

Ships in the operating cycle immediately ahead of refit will be used to deliver training alongside home Bases and Ports. HMS DAUNTLESS entered this profile in February this year. A reduced Ship’s Company reside on board as normal, augmented by trainees who use the opportunity to gain experience through development activities in a realistic environment.”

HMS Dauntless is the second ship of the Type 45 or Daring-class air-defence destroyers built for the Royal Navy. The Type 45 destroyers are primarily designed for anti-air warfare with the capability to defend against sophisticated targets such as fighter aircraft, drones as well as highly manoeuvrable sea skimming anti-ship missiles travelling at supersonic speeds. The Royal Navy describes the destroyers’ mission as being “to shield the Fleet from air attack”.

One of the most controversial of her, until recently, frequent deploys was in January 2012, when it was announced that Dauntless would deploy to the South Atlantic to replace HMS Montrose which was stationed around the Falkland Islands. The deployment was condemned by the government of Argentina, which claimed that the UK was “militarising the South Atlantic”, despite the replacement representing only a modest increase in fighting capacity.

In 2015, Dauntless re-sailed for the Middle East after a short delay, with a plan to take part in the centenary of the Gallipoli Campaign. She conducted anti-piracy patrols, as well as escorting US Navy aircraft carrier USS Carl Vinson.

While a remedy is being worked on and the vessel will eventually return to operations, this will not be for a few years yet.

 

Subscribe
Notify of
guest
71 Comments
oldest
newest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Dave Stone
Dave Stone
5 years ago

That’s OK as we have loads of other ships avail… oh wait

andy reeves,
andy reeves,
3 years ago
Reply to  Dave Stone

was the reduction in the order for 12 t 45’s a mastersroke of genius after all?!!!!!

Sam
Sam
5 years ago

The officials really are a cunning bunch – fabricating stories to make it ‘appear’ as though the navy is absolutely useless… genius!

Andy hutchinson
Andy hutchinson
5 years ago

i am all for new technology even in warfare but when we only have 6 destroyers instead of the original 12 we were supposed to have then sometimes the old tried and tested method is best….as for the government well what do you expect when they would rather spend billions of pounds of taxpayers money in foreign aid and sorting out other countries before our country and the people in it….like shutting the door after the horse has bolted….they are all as much use as a handbrake on a canoe…

Mark Turner
5 years ago

Is this problem unique to Dauntless or is it related to the well publicised more general problem that the T45 has had?

UK Defence Journal
5 years ago
Reply to  Mark Turner

T45 in general but it hit Dauntless hardest.

Pablo
Pablo
5 years ago

Its a lot of hearsay but there has been a suggestion that as well as getting an extra diesel generator there are issues with the WR-21s intercooler and/or control systems, maybe Dauntless has had more issues or they are trying a couple of solutions and Dauntless is the test bed.

andy reeves,
andy reeves,
3 years ago

makes a change, its the treasury that usually hits the navy the most.

Alex Williams
5 years ago

The MOD ordering six instead of 12 of these may have turned out to be better in the long run. This sort of thing is by no means unprecedented, but with capability cut to the bone there’s nothing to take up the slack…

Pablo
Pablo
5 years ago
Reply to  Alex Williams

The Navy wanted the carriers, so 12 T-45s was out of the question. It was a choice the Navy made, “This is your future budget, slice it up as you will”. We were never getting 2 QE`s and 12 T-45s.

andy reeves,
andy reeves,
3 years ago
Reply to  Pablo

the type 22’s were good for at least another 9 years service the majority should have been kept, refitted with equipment from the t 45 design. we could/should buy back the 2 t22’s still in active service in brazil an the two from romania

Mark Turner
5 years ago

A few years…..?! Doesn’t anyone else find it rather worrying that 1/6th of the Type 45 fleet is effectively on long time sick leave?

I knew there had been problems but not that it would take anywhere not that long to resolve them or be so serious as to confine it to port.

Pablo
Pablo
5 years ago
Reply to  Mark Turner

Yes, it sounds rather more than fitting an extra diesel donk doesn’t it?

andy reeves,
andy reeves,
3 years ago
Reply to  Pablo

knock out the wardroom(its redundant space anyway and put a diesel jenny in there

Jason Bartlett
5 years ago

This is bad news, the fleet is already over stretched and now we are down one more and it’s a very high profile one to. This shows how poor a state the navy is in when we don’t even in peace time have the ability to replace a ship on the front line.

andy reeves,
andy reeves,
3 years ago
Reply to  Jason Bartlett

in peace prepare for war.

Rob Simmonds
5 years ago

Out of action for years? One hopes BAE are paying dearly for a balls up of that magnitude.

Graham Nicholls
5 years ago
Reply to  Rob Simmonds

Even tough it was rolls Royce that built the propulsion system not bae maybe u should research a wee bit

Mark
Mark
5 years ago

I would further that by asking if the navy would have the personnel to man Dauntless?! The Rolls-Royce kit on board is being removed for spares for the other five & is largely newly overhauled (scheduled). Maybe everyone should do some more research into facts before pointing fingers immediately to industry for once?

Rob Simmonds
5 years ago
Reply to  Rob Simmonds

BAE were the prime contractor. Ultimate responsibility should rest with them. From their own website:

“BAE Systems is the design authority and prime contractor for the Type 45 Destroyer programme. Under this agreement, we are responsible for the design, development, integration and delivery of six destroyers that will provide the backbone of the UK Royal Navy”

Maybe you should do your own research.

Pablo
Pablo
5 years ago
Reply to  Rob Simmonds

BAES suggested the LM-2500…..it was MOD which wanted the WR-21…..”made in UK” stamp on it although the WR-21 was an Anglo American design.

Rick Olding
5 years ago
Reply to  Rob Simmonds

Provide the backbone ? And then there were five. Phftttt !!!

Rob Simmonds
5 years ago
Reply to  Rob Simmonds

It’s a very short spine…

Graham Nicholls
5 years ago
Reply to  Rob Simmonds

It’s rolls Royce that build the systems that failed, they have the responsibility since its there equipment.

Craig Osbourne
5 years ago
Reply to  Rob Simmonds

Rob is right . Graham is wrong.. The prime contractor assumes all obligations of managing its supply chain. But another question goes down to what requirements were specked and taken to PDR/CD-R. I’m not close to the issue so don’t know the detail

Rob Simmonds
5 years ago
Reply to  Rob Simmonds

I know. I work for a prime contractor for the MOD, and I know if one of our sub-contractors screw up, its laid on our table for us to sort out. We may then go to the subcontractor and beat them up for it, but ultimately the prime contractor is paid the money to take the risk on.

realfan
realfan
5 years ago
Reply to  Rob Simmonds

Bae recommended that the MoD NOT use the Rolls engine. The MoD overruled Bae and therefore assumed all risk tied to that decision. This is all made clear in the MoD’s reply to a parliamentary question asking why Bae & Rolls are not on the hook for repair money.

Fedaykin
Fedaykin
5 years ago
Reply to  realfan

That is not exactly what happened, BAe put forward two design solutions: Option 1: 4 x GE LM2500 plus four diesel generators Option 2: 2 x RR WR21 plus four diesel generators BAe said both solutions were viable but Option 2 had higher risk. The decision for what propulsion layout was with the MOD and the Defence Secretary. The decision to go for Option 2 was made by then Defence Secretary Michael Fallon. Considering that his constituency had the RR Derby factory in it and they were making noises about pulling out of the Marine Turbine business he decided to… Read more »

Fedaykin
Fedaykin
5 years ago
Reply to  Fedaykin

Whoops Geof Hoon not Fallon … Fridays!

Craig Osbourne
5 years ago
Reply to  Rob Simmonds

Yep! Likewise

UK Defence Journal
5 years ago
Reply to  Rob Simmonds

Sue Geoff Hoon…

Colin
Colin
5 years ago
Reply to  Rob Simmonds

It isn’t BAE Systems fault for this. The engines were government furnished equipment. The MoD chose the engines as they were supposed to be used by the Americans as well as us for new ships. However the USN pulled out and left us as the only ones using this engine.

david southern
david southern
5 years ago
Reply to  Rob Simmonds

Both contractors built to spec which was ordered by the MOD. So its not the contractors fault; its the MOD. Again!

Pablo
Pablo
5 years ago
Reply to  david southern

Yes, but it was a risky though clever design ( NG, DCN and RR) which was unproven but the turbine bit manufactured in the UK. RR are now making a compact MT-30 but way out of the T-45s league as a refit option.

andy reeves,
andy reeves,
3 years ago
Reply to  Rob Simmonds

they’ll still get the biggest contracts.

Vince Carroll
Vince Carroll
5 years ago

Whats the warranty on these things? I mean if I bought a brand new spanking car and it turned out the engine didn’t work when it got a little warm, I’d take it back. Not put it in the garage for a few years while the manufacturer worked out a solution at my expense right? Or don’t you have warranties when it’s just billions of taxpayer pounds going to your mates?

There seems to be something wrong with our bloody ships these days.

andy reeves,
andy reeves,
3 years ago
Reply to  Vince Carroll

sounds like del boy has a job at the m.o.d

Allan Southern
5 years ago

Always thought gas turbines were designed for easy replacement ?

Pablo
Pablo
5 years ago
Reply to  Allan Southern

There are spots on the hull plating designed to be cut open to aid replacement but the GTs are not going to be replaced. I think they are just adding an extra diesel generator.

andy reeves,
andy reeves,
3 years ago
Reply to  Allan Southern

i changed a oylympus tyne turbine in 24 hours on the old birmingham

Darren McRitchie
5 years ago

Pathetic! Britain can’t build a decent warship anymore…

andy reeves,
andy reeves,
3 years ago

go back to an updated leander frigate design.?

Peter Vine
5 years ago

I dare say something will have to be done and I fear that the MoD and RN will have to bite the bullet and start producing the Type 31 sooner than planned and build more of them. I’m getting the feeling that the RN of the 21st Century will be categorised by smaller and cheaper ships with their initial capability inferior to those of their predecessors..

Max Chris Hedges Bingham

Throwaway “could be some years” is frightening. There are only six in the class and no sign of Type 26. Where pray do the Government expect to find escorts for the two new carriers? Forget the EU Referendum when are we to face up to the seriousness of our naval deficiencies. Those Russian football hooligans will be wearing uniform and doing it for real soon if we don’t wake up. I grew up in the Cold War when fear of nuclear weapons was tangible but I feel more insecure now than I ever did in the 50’s, 60’s and 70’s.

Graham Mann
5 years ago

You and me both Max more and more sub, surface ship and air incursions let alone trawlers with more ariels than the GPO tower!

andy reeves,
andy reeves,
3 years ago

paint the gosport ferry grey and crew it with redundant admirals sitting in offices

Steve
Steve
5 years ago

Assuming that we could use it at relatively short notice and that is not being gutted for parts and that enough sailors are around, this isn’t a huge issue.

There are no real threats currently, that would require a destroyer, and the QE class won’t be around for another couple of years.

Realistically destroyers are not really needed in peacetime. For sure it is better to use them, but we can survive.

Dewi Pennell
5 years ago

Do the Queen Elizabeth carriers have the same propulsion system?

UK Defence Journal
5 years ago
Reply to  Dewi Pennell

No.

Pablo
Pablo
5 years ago
Reply to  Dewi Pennell

The QE`s` have MT-30s. The T-45 have the WR-21`s.

Mark Hawes
Mark Hawes
5 years ago

Sorry but the builders need to be fined or pick up the cost for repairs.

Keith Savage
5 years ago

Paul Dodson

Paul Dodson
5 years ago

Oh dear some one needs to pay for this cock up.

Pablo
Pablo
5 years ago
Reply to  Paul Dodson

Well Dauntless has just become the most expensive SAM battery installation in history 🙂

andy reeves,
andy reeves,
3 years ago
Reply to  Paul Dodson

buy the designers new pencils.

Steve
Steve
5 years ago

Yes we will pay.

Policiticans and the MOD are masters at being Teflon to any problem. In the end the tax payer pays as does the navy

The only really surprsingly thing is these are not brand new ships and yet there still isn’t a solution ready.

They have to get this under control before the carriers are launched or we will look very stupid worldwide with carriers with a part air arm and no escorts.

Steve
Steve
5 years ago

We can send survey ships etc to cover the lack of holes during peacetime, but ships like hms enterprise can’t escort the carriers realstically and the French are having the same issues with hulls and so we can’t rely on them all the time. We have a real risk of digging ourselves into a hole with the escort requirements with the carriers and the lack of actual ships.

Alan Pratt
Alan Pratt
5 years ago
Reply to  Steve

Rely on the French ? rely on the French all the time ? what are you on about ?

andy reeves,
andy reeves,
3 years ago
Reply to  Steve

japans navy is now bigger than the u.k and french navy combined

Adrian Palmer
Adrian Palmer
5 years ago

Surely the most worrying aspect is the complacency of the reply to the parliamentary question.

Emma Finney
5 years ago

David R Young

geoff
geoff
5 years ago

Outrageous. The design team and the MoD should be held jointly responsible but going forward surely this should be treated as an emergency repair? The whole small fleet of T45’s is in reality hobbled. I live in South Africa and we have a really incompetent government but I sometimes wonder about “First World” Britain.
It really is unbelievable.

andy reeves,
andy reeves,
3 years ago
Reply to  geoff

2nd world nowdays

Steven
5 years ago

Truly embarrassing state of affairs.

Our future ships ought to be nuclear powered.

Pablo
Pablo
5 years ago
Reply to  Steven

OOh please nooooo! if you think GTs are expensive wait until you see the price for a compact naval reactor 🙂 Interestingly reactors are surprisingly small you could fit a core in the back of a small van but it wouldn’t be good for the suspension I hear.

Max
Max
5 years ago
Reply to  Steven

Really look at the problems the astute are having … we have to have American engineers to sort them out … we do the have the knowhow anymore and have fallen behind could tries like China india France… the whole structure needs to be adjusted

andy reeves,
andy reeves,
3 years ago
Reply to  Max

i don’t think we’ve even got a structure, but if q.e and p.ow are to operate for 50 years, then all ships should

A. Turner
A. Turner
5 years ago

Its tragic! Millions of pounds were spent in designing and implementing the world class weapons systems that are fitted to these vessels. Now to be rendered as good as useless due to Wait for it! Propulsion problems!. Why in gods name did they go for a unproven and obviously stupid system? Why not put half a dozen good diesels on them with, say a HV system driving high speed Azimuth thrusters! at least the ferking things will get out of pompey harbour! Why dont we just build 30 basic hulls in the water with a decent gun, a decent sonar,… Read more »

andy reeves,
andy reeves,
3 years ago
Reply to  A. Turner

we all do but i like the idea of basic hulls.

Jonathan
Jonathan
5 years ago

People said it was okay to have only 6 instead of the original 12, as they could do the work of several older Destroyers.

How did that turn out?