Have you wondered how many days the Type 45 Destroyer fleet spent at sea over the last few years?
The information below comes from a response to a written Parliamentary question.
“The normal operating cycle of every ship involves them entering different readiness levels depending on their programmes, periods of refit and Departmental planning requirements”, said Jeremy Quin, the Minister of State at the Ministry of Defence.
“In addition, these figures represent days at sea, and it should be noted that, while deployed away from the UK, ships will spend both days at sea and alongside in ports around the world.”
| DESTROYER | 2015 | 2016 | 2017 | 2018 | 2019 |
| DARING | 48 | 148 | 85 | 0 | 0 |
| DAUNTLESS | 114 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| DIAMOND | 27 | 118 | 116 | 99 | 14 |
| DRAGON | 69 | 56 | 56 | 145 | 163 |
| DEFENDER | 106 | 115 | 0 | 84 | 183 |
| DUNCAN | 188 | 86 | 107 | 135 | 153 |
HMS Daring and HMS Dauntless have both taken turns as harbour training ship due to manning issues hence their 0 days at sea, with Dauntless now in refit to rejoin the fleet and Daring awaiting the start of her own refit.
Thank goodness for HMS Duncan!!!! Please tell me that this is not because HMS Duncan Is the subject of the Channel 5 documentary ‘Warship:Life at Sea’!!! (Sorry, that was a little cynical)
No it’s actually due to the spirit of Admiral Duncan who has gifted the ship his amazing abilities at winning battles, mixed with a little of the city of Dundee. None of that can be bought with money.
?
But, what would I know. I am just a daft sassenach. Although my brother studied at Aberdeen and used to work on the Dundee Courier |(now he works for CNN Politics – the Trump bashers!!!)
CNN the network that’s promoting rioting and looting of American cities.
No CNN that is reporting on the facts while the president gets photos with bibles…
Yes indeed CNN a totally bias un credible news outfit . As left wing as they come . I thought the bbc and sky were bad but they take things to a whole new level . Promoters of hate and Haters of anything that’s not of democrat party .
Amen – from someone who lives in the US!
So it’s almost like all the reports of “T45s can’t deploy” are the nonsense we thought. Still reaching 500+ days a year availability.
Daily Mail Doily Mashers are defeated!!!
Not really. Dragon only spent 14 days at sea with 0 for Daring and Dauntless. Only 3 of the 6 actually spent meaning full time at sea, that’s 50%. Hopefully Daring will go into refit directly after Dauntless, closely followed by Dragon? With 2 due to deploy with the QE next year, we need far more availability from the very limited number of ships we have.
This….im sure when envisaged and numbers of boats cut they expected a lot more from these ships
That is less than 25% availability for the T45 fleet in 2019, leaves a lot to be desired considering their price. It was problematic when the Iranian seized the tanker, and it is not a good sign when they will be even more solicited for carrier protection when they are soon to be declared operational. This needs to be improved ASAP.
So what is wrong with Dauntless ?
She was Ported due to some Technical and Manpower issues – but she has just come out of a Refit and will be the first T45 to have the Engine Replacement work done.
Thanks Paul
Has the engine work been done or is she going straight back into refit?
Not been done yet – post refit trials then straight to Birkenhead for the Engine work -might even be there now.
I see dauntless being tied up as a training ship as a bonus, we have a 10-11yo ship that hasn’t been battered by the sea for 4-5 of those years by the time she’s operational again. Other than normal saltwater issues, no real hull stresses being exerted on her. It’ll be good in the long term as she’s going to take a pounding on trials to prove the ‘fix’ once the new power plant is installed.
Long Lay-ups don’t always work that way, they can cause more problems than solutions, but provided all measures have been taken regards maintenance yes Hull life should benefit.
Agreed Paul majority of systems won’t like it, Id hope the maintenance has been ongoing as she was supposed to be ‘training for engineers’. I was think more about the structural abuse she’s going to take during the trials, given the previous problems I imagine it’ll consist of some very high power settings and equally high rudder angles.
Dauntless is currently in Birkenhead for the PIP work.
Dauntless arrived at I believe Cammell Lairds over a couple of weeks ago to begin the work on replacing the generators etc.
Sorry if it’s a silly question, if a ship is doing 150-180 days at sea, would it all be with the same crew or are they double crewed and swap over at some point? I assume you would have spare people if 2 ships are not being used at all
Ulya not silly at all. Short answer is yes at sea deployments can be that long but can also be a few weeks, all depends on the ship and why. Duncan’s actually an easy example, the vast majority of days at sea in 2018 and 2019 were on long deployments, as the documentary shows.
They will need those power/propulsion issues sorted if two are to go to sea with the HMS Queen Elizabeth’s first operational deployment next year – whoah, that has crept up on us quickly!!!!
Dauntless has been earmarked as one of the two
Should two 45s being readied for sea I can imagine some NATO defence diplomacy being fielded in case there are some unforseen circumstances and Allies have to front up an AAW platform.
Dauntless was value for money eh
Those numbers look really bad, considering we only have 3.
I wonder why the first 3 on the list have such low rates.
Taking the 2018 data and on average we had 1.2 ships at sea and the 2019 equals 1.4, that means that we barely have enough to provide one carrier with one escort.
They really should have up-armed the t26 to include Aster30 to at least give better coverage.
6 not 3, but point remains.
Bear in mind that the RN has had to have one alongside due purely to lack of available crew for the last few years. Not to do with the technical availbility of the platform. Still not good, but not a problem with the vessel as such. Unfortunately, I don’t think Aster30 would fit in any of the T26′ VLS, and they’re an expensive fit for a backup AAD platform… Quad packed CAMM-ERs might be a better choice, which would provide AAD somewhere between Aster 15 and 30. But they’d need to be cleared for Mk41 VLS- I think they’re only… Read more »
As has been noted by others on here and on the STRN site the logical choice of VLS on the Type 26 should be SYLVER A70 rather than MK41.
Yes! The need for a VLS isn’t in question…but having two types in service doesn’t make sense. I was previously all for going all in on mk41 as the core around which the fleet is built. However, I’ve being convinced by various arguments of the benefits of doing so around Sylver; not least the range of weapons differing from the US that the U.K. does and will use, and the ability to certify them. Stick some V70 canisters on truck chassis and give the Army a range of options too. The French and Italians would love us for it…well the… Read more »
Atleast with mk41 we could launch tomahawks and anti submarine rockets/torpedoes, pretty high priority for ASW ship.
The RN only procured the submarine version, it is different from the VLS version.
But we can purchase the Block IV for use on Tupe 26
I didn’t know they did a land-based system too! That’s an interesting possibility.
I know that we end up with a lot of hassle from French industry, but we generally seem to make the missile systems work at least. But we do have good military links, and so I try not to knock them too hard. Would be interested in better links with Italy, they’ve got some good gear, operate some common platforms and there are even some Italian companies involved in tempest. All told, would be an interesting route to take!
Cam – a point I’m well aware of. But I’m crossing Everything I can for Perseus to happen…and that should 1) replace TLAM; and 2) be Sylver certified by the French. I’d also advocate that a U.K. / euro ASROC should be knocked up as 1) our lightweight torpedoes are better; and 2) the rest could probably be assembled from the MBDA parts bin. Joe16 – I was being slightly flippant with my comment, but SAMP/T is *basically* just A50 canisters on a flatbed. And, if the same were done with A70, you’d have common area GBAD /BMD / coastal… Read more »
WeeWill – Rather than just Perseus, which was only a hypersonic concept, I’d advocate for FC/ASW to produce both lower speed stealth and super/hypersonic variants as there seem to be use cases for both for air, surface and sub-surface launch applications. I’d argue that MK 41 provides the UK with more options over Sylver. However, it would require qualifying Aster variants for MK 41, but that has to be something MBDA would also want in order to broaden the market, so UK shouldn’t have to carry all the integration costs. An MBDA VLA that is designed from the outset to… Read more »
Fair points GHF. And yes I’m using Perseus as generic shorthand for whatever the heavy cruise / stand off project turns out to be, which is an oversimplification; what it could / should / might be could probably fill an article in its own. I’d still guess at too long for an A50 though. Part of my preference for Sylver would be the increased impetus to flex our weapons R&D abilities like days of yore (albeit a select ‘cut to our cloth’ range, instead of having a go at everything) and not just buy MCOTS weapons from the US. However… Read more »
Agree that FC/ASW would require Sylver A-70 or MK 41 Strike, SCALP already requires A-70. Regarding weapons development, I separate the VLS from the missile. Today MK 41 is dominated by US missiles while Sylver by European, but there’s no inherent reason why Euro missiles can’t be qualified for Mk 41 and strong commercial reasons for MBDA to want to do so. I like to see a strong European missile development, whether the UK is involved in development/production or not, both for commercial competitiveness but also because it helps drive innovation. NSM/JSM and Meteor are already positive examples. Aster 30… Read more »
Not sure I fully agree with separation of weapons dev and launcher – it has to be launched from something, so whatever choice you make, type certification for that launcher is in some proportion or another rolled in with the weapon’s R&D costs. And while I don’t doubt MBDA would like someone to fork out to cert their stuff in mk41, I think they would balance that consideration with how ‘losing’ the U.K. to mk41 could reduce potential future R&D investment by making US MCOTS the lazy / cheaper (or in treasury terms, ‘preferred’) choice. Without financial constraints, a mix… Read more »
Fair points. For better or worse the RN/MoD seem to have made the decision for Mk41 as the VLS platform of choice for the future. Outside of France and Italy it seems the rest of Europe has too. Not to mention most of the rest of the world, once we get to frigates/destroyers and strike length cells. Consequently I see MBDA becoming more focused on supporting Mk 41 earlier on in development, perhaps in parallel with Sylver, in order to open up a world market for their missiles … or at least a broader European market. At the moment I’d… Read more »
The hope with “sub-hunting” UUVs is that they are in the water 24/7 and only come back to the mothership for periodic maintenance or if it has a fault. There are still loads of questions that require answering regarding UUVs, such as communications, duration, operational distance from mothership etc, but I do expect us to start fielding a basic system soon. Perhaps it would be a good time to marry up a UUV as a stand-off sensor for an ASROC type of weapon system.
Oh I agree lots of questions need answers. Not least if a UUV is going to help with targeting a VLA then the UUV is going to have to keep up with the ships its helping to defend, which is a very different application to the much slower monitoring and patrol applications.
Something that everyone is interested in at the moment are long-distance FIRES, so would be an interesting development!
I do wonder if the shit hit the fan and we had a urgently launch a task force, what the actual availability would be like, could the ones laid up be reactivated in a realistic time frame.
Combine that with the distribution of the ships being global (some of the ships would take months to get back), i wonder if we realistically could launch a task force.
Yeah course we could, but it wouldn’t be the largest ever, maybe something slightly larger than our up coming carrier battle group…
Is that a viable task force though.
Even the t45 doesn’t really have sufficient missile load on its own to protect a task force, they should have a lot more missiles.
If you compare the 48 missiles vs the 96 on the Arleigh Burke or the 48 on the various European frigates, and you realise that they are under-armed.
I understand why they have not been fitted for the strike length tubes as the cost would be excessive, but that space should have been used for some CAMMs.
I’m sure that if war broke out between the West and Russia or China America would attach at least 1 Burke class destroyer to the British carrier group if so requested. That’s the reason they train to do that sort of stuff now.
If war broke out, i highly suspect that the AB will be focused on protecting the US carriers / assault ships and we would be left looking after our own forces. However a all out war is not very realistic, i think we should be more focused on a smaller regional conflict where we had to act on our own or with a few European allies but without support from the US.
Steve, the UK has almost never operated alone and we need to get specific about threats to have a reasonable discussion. Just how many scenarios can we identify where the UK would have to operate a CSG alone, where no one else would consider it appropriate to help? I can’t think of any today.
Then let’s not ignore our European NATO partners. Numerous modern extremely capable AAW destroyers and frigates, numerous high end frigates for GP and ASW focused roles. We aren’t dependent on the US alone to augment our capabilities.
The systems are not comparable. An AB has 96 silos. Some may have 10 tomahawk and some 10 with Asroc. So the AAW load out is probably 76. Standard US practise is 2 missiles per target because the hit ration for a single standard is not as high as a single Sea Viper. 2 missile salvos are needed to increase your chances of a hit. Noting that, then an AB can only hit and kill 37 odd targets. Viper has a superior hit ratio for a single missile so out of 48 missiles you stand a good chance of hitting… Read more »
That’s assuming everything goes to plan and one missile one kill is achieved, history tells us that in reality that is unlikely to be the case. However i take your point that the sea viper on paper is a better missile, so in practice has a better chance of success.
Saying that my point remains, as the US do not protect their carriers with just 1 AB, they have multiple destroyers/cruisers, which is something we would struggle to achieve.
Actually I’m not so sure that the USN is capable of putting such a big escort force out as many assume. I looked up the USN escort force (discounting the LCS) and there were about 89 Ticos and AB’s. With 11 carriers and 35 amphibious warfare vessels the escort force is thinly spread. This is supported by a number of comments I have seen on here and elsewhere in the defence press highlighting that USMC amphibs are increasingly wondering around the [safer areas?] of the globe with no escort or “self escorting” I think the phrase is. My understanding is… Read more »
Not disagreeing with the thrust of the argument but just noting that some of the remaining 76 AAW cells will be quad packed ESSM. That said, I’d still rather face a saturation attack of stealth and supersonic sea skimming missiles in a T45 than an AB today. Sampson will also be better than the SPY-1/SPQ-9B combination against this threat but as you say its the entire system that’s greater than the sum of the parts. The Flight III’s with SPY-6, and active seeker SM-6 and ESSM Block II will presumably help close the gap. I haven’t read if there are… Read more »
Hi Steve. From what I have heard, an Arleigh Burke would fire its missiles in pairs to give a high rate of intercept. With Aster 15 and 30, a Type 45 has no need to fire in the same manor and can fire singularly with the same high probability of intercept. 48 missiles fired individually is the same as 96 fired in pairs.
Again, I can’t attest to this as fact but that’s what I have read.
We could probably put together 3 Type 45s and 4-5 Type 23s, plus 2 Astutes/Trafalgars.
If you look at the number of vessels that were available to join the Falklands war vs number of total hulls of the fleet at the time, and those figures look optimistic.
I’d say they are about right. Possibly optimistic on the submarines, may only be 1 in worst case scenario. But I think we could scrape 2 together. I think my numbers for frigates and destroyers is about right. We have 13 Type 23 destroyers, could put 4 or 5 to sea in a war situation. 4 would be just under the 1/3 available. Out of the remaining 9 ships I imagine at least 1 or 2 could be made ready fairly quickly if the need arose. What will be far more difficult is in future when the 13 Type 23… Read more »
Don’t forget at least 1 or 2 of the major escorts and a sub would need to stay in home waters to defend the mainland, which limits the options a bit.
You would need MK41 on T26 for both Tomahawk (Strike length) and ASROC. Would think the latter is essential for an ASW platform with no torpedo launchers planned? I think, but stand ready to be corrected, the larger SYLVER 90 would be needed for the T45 if the ABM version of Aster 30 is desired?
For sure will not be tomahawk, we do not have enough missiles to arm the subs and the t26, additionally they are going out of service.
ASROC would be a good buy, but that is fantasy fleet thinking, seems unlikely that we will invest in additional weapons lines when we can’t fully equip the ones we have.
The version of TLAM the RN has procured is for the subs only, I am sure how much work on them to be adapted for VLS.
You’re right, but neither of them are going to be purchased by the RN at present. T26 will rely on embarked helicopters for offensive ASW work, and land strike is reserved for the Astutes and carrier strike aircraft. Not saying it’s a good call, but it’s the one they’ve made.
It remains somewhat unclear what they plan to put in the T26′ VLS in fact.
Waddi – you have to balance that with Aster 1NT/,BMD variants, SCALP plus its successor, Perseus, a European ASROC equivalent, CAAM ER, more options in the pipeline than MK41 will offer.
Dammit Paul, stop making all the points before I can haha.
As far as I’m aware, Aster NT is the currently available BMD capable missile, and is physically the same but with software upgrades; therefore fits in the A50 tubes. I’ve neither seen nor heard what, if any, physical changes are being made for a planned Aster 2, so can’t state what size tube would be needed (apart from it probably won’t be smaller than Aster 1).
As for TLAM; are the RN’s stocks even VLS capable, considering they’re currently sub launched?
Tomahawk sub launch is a completely different beast to VL launch. Tomahawk in name Only.
Thanks for the confirmation. So it’s either a big buy of new weapons…or empty tubes then.
I think you are right, too much work for the sub launched TLAM to be adapted for VLS.
That’s an interesting point, and one that makes sense. Particularly as all of our advanced future weapons that I’m awaare of are Euro collaborations rather than US. I’m thinking specifically of Storm Shadow replacement, which I think is slated for surface launch and ASM versions?
Is there a significant price difference between strike length Mk41 and Sylver A70? I can fully understand why Australia and Canada went with Mk41, but it makes less sense for us- and I’m sure both would fit in the T26′ hull space.
Was not Finland charged $70m for just 4 Mk. 41 systems for Corvettes in 2018!
Hi Meirion,
I think you are right, but that cost included a support package as well if I remember rightly (discussed sometime ago now).
Cheers CR
See my comment above Joe. Aster 30 will easily fit in the T26 MK41 strike length cells.
Sure, sorry I wasn’t being clear at all, I agree they’ll fit. But they’ll need to be cleared for it. The missiles themselves are also very expensive if we’re talking about a back-up capability on the T26 if the two T45s go down (which I think was the original subject of conversation). I’d rather go with quad-packed CAMM-ER as a goldilocks solution between Aster15 and 30, while making best use of the available tubes. I fully agree with your point that we should be on board with the European missile drive- we’ll have ay more chance of production and design… Read more »
It could be possible to make Camm-ER/Sea Ceptor as manoeuvrable as Aster. Aster uses the four strakes as stabilisers and they generate a modicum of lift. However, the real reason it’s so manoeuvrable, especially in the terminal phase, is that it makes use of four laterally internally mounted jets to move the missile to the target or in some cases throw the missile in the targets direction to ensure a proximity hit. Sea Ceptor being based on ASRRAM is a very clean aerodynamic shape. It uses the body shape to generate lift and uses rear fins for steering. This makes… Read more »
Good points, well made. I was really only looking at speed and range, which are not everything. Do you think the manoeuverability of Aster15 is enough of a factor to win its place in the RN’s armoury agaisnt CAMM-ER? I really like the idea of quad-packed CAMM-ER as the standard Sea Ceptor armament across the fleet, if we can fit it in Sylver A50, Mk41, and the mushroom farms. To me, that greater magazine depth and commonality across the fleet (even on T45) seems to be a winner. Obviously, keep Aster 30, upgraded to 1NT/BMD version or whatever it’s called.
Hi Daveyb, Adding vector thrust to CAMM-ER is probably not really desireable. Firstly, there’ll be no space available – so major redesign to create the necessary space which would make for a bigger missile, less fuel or smaller warhead or some other compromise. Then the body may need to be strengthened to take the additional loads, then there is the guidance system and fuse that would have to be updated to control the vector thrusting. All of which mean that in effect you are designing another Aster, which defeats the idea of a cost effective missile system that complements Aster.… Read more »
In some respects the Camm series has already got the capability of piff-paff controls. When it is chucked up in the air by the cold launch system, it will rotate to face the direction of the threat. It does this by using tail operated piff-paff gas jets, which I believe are one shot only. So technically the missile’s software has already the means of controlling piff-paff jets. Aster uses a different method. The piff-paff jets are a direct feed from the solid fuel chamber and is controlled by a series of check valves. The jets are located near the center… Read more »
Aster 30 will fit in MK41 Strike length cell which is 7.7m long, i.e. 0.7m longer than Sylver A-70. To quote Lockheed, “The missiles currently integrated with MK 41 VLS include ESSM, Tomahawk, SM-2, SM-3, SM-6 and ASROC (VLA). Future missile integration could include LRASM, CAMM, ASTER, Future Cruise/Anti-Ship Weapon (FC/ASW) and Barak.” Of those options, the UK is most likely to be interested in SM-6 and SM-3 for BMD as an option to Aster 30 Block 1NT and Aster 30 Block 2 BMD, in case the latter don’t meet UK requirements. Similarly LRASM might become an option if FC/ASW… Read more »
I know you mention SM-6 and SM-3, but would that not be more expensive, due to having to tie it into our existing fire control systems as well as clear them for use on the Sylver tubes on T45? Or are you thinking of using the T26s as arsenal ships for BMD within the task group? I’d be hesitant about doing that, as BMD is considered a separate mission to carrier strike, and I wouldn’t want to have to send a T26 around with a T45 all the time for BMD. I think, for better or worse, we may be… Read more »
Using T26 as an arsenal ship for T45 to protect the CSG or an amphibious force from ballistic missile attack is what I am referring to. A situation where both classes of ship will be present and where the need for BMD is increasing. I don’t think in future we get the option to decide if BMD is part of a CSG or not because those will be the most likely threats. Hypersonic “everything” missiles is what is driving the USN to consider more numerous smaller platforms to spread the increasing risk. I would agree that having BMD organic to… Read more »
I didn’t realise we had an alternative to CEC, I’m glad of that! Long term, I just see there being more mileage in supporting domestic weaponry (ASROC for Stingray, CAMM(-ER), FC/ASW) via Sylver because none of these are currently clear for Mk41 either. The US is never going to buy any of those products, nor Aster, but other Euro countries might or are already on board anyway. If you’re smart about the development of them too, I bet you could construct the “inserts” for the VLS to be easily switched for Mk41 as well (looking at Australia as a potential… Read more »
I know Daring and Dauntless will be going in for refits but it can’t be good for the hull or engines being inactive for so long. Is there not a risk of engine components not matter how big fusing together when they are inactive that long?
No.
Being laid up means the vessels get dehumidified. Equipment is maintained and turned over by a skeleton maintenance crew.
Thanks for the actual number.
So, it is 23%.
I understand this number is also escort-wide, say, both T45 and T23 will be “at sea” for ~25%. But, if CVF also are to go with 25%, CVTF will not lack escorts (although UK will lack CVTF itself. )
I think the ultimate goal is making it 33%. In other words, 10 points (or 40%) increase in seagoing days per escort.
Manning is the key, I guess.
I see nothing wrong with the spread of figures. There is 2 (+1) available, 2 in ‘refit’, and 1 (+1) mid-cycle. For maturing platforms levelling out they are acceptable.
One of the main drivers for the cut in the numbers being made was that they would have a far higher availability rate than the predecessors, i suspect based on these stats that is not true, so it is an issue. Admittedly the issue is in the 6 hulls vs required 8-12, but that ship has sailed unfortunately and now can’t be fixed, as such we should be looking at the upcoming frigates to provide more of a anti-air coverage. If you look at the Italian/french FREMM they have Aster30 capability, which is the direct comparison to the t26. We… Read more »
Why assume the T26 won’t have Aster in the MK 41 cells? It would be the most logical missile to qualify first for the RN and would probably lead to enabling all variants of Aster, i.e. Aster 15, Aster 30, Aster 30 Block 1 NT and in due course Aster 30 Block 2 BMD. The BMD capability can be targeted by a T45 after launch from T26. T45 has already demonstrated BM detection with its current radar set. The RN might even have CEC by the time T26 is operational, enabling direct control from T45. The US has CEC already… Read more »
I don’t think Aster works with MK41 cells as it is designed for the Sylver tubes.
I assume there is a plan for the MK41, but no one knows what it is.
Steve, you’re correct as of now, probably because there hasn’t been a Mk 41 customer who has wanted to sponsor qualification of Aster. The UK would be the most likely to consider that worth while. Lockheed advertise Aster as a future option for the MK 41 in their literature so there isn’t an inherent barrier to doing so though.
True, although i suspect there is a cost barrier and that doesn’t seem a hurdle that the navy can cross currently.
Well to be fair no need to qualify Aster for MK 41 today since T26 won’t be operational for 7-8 years.
The problem is the work doesn’t happen overnight (endless discussions and PR stunts need to happen first and then move to contract etc) and will take multiple years, so if there is no talk of it by now, i highly doubt it will be ready in 7 years time, but i guess there is still a bit of time.
I’ve heard they’re considering it, but do you have any more info than that about CEC? I’d love to see it implemented on T45 at the very least!
Considering it is equal to fitted for but not with. We are considering doing xyz is the stock answer to politician questions made by generals/admirals, that make it look like things are more advanced, but in practice are not going to happen.
You’re probably right, I just hope they learn their lesson with T4X on this one…
Pure speculation regrading CEC on my part Joe. There’s no compelling reason to do it now because of the limited gains from networking in T23 to T45, or linking sensors across a CSG including from F35B. However, with fully operational carriers along with T26 CEC becomes much more compelling in my view. France has more networkable assets earlier which is why I suspect they are making the move now.
Ah well, we can but hope..!
I was in Daring 2016/17 we deployed to the Gulf in Sep 17 so that’s 4 months or roughly 120 days immediately, in the rest of the year we carried out trials and OST, definitely more than 148 in 2016. We returned from deployment in May 2017 so there’s 120 operational days. During the deployment we managed 130 hours at action stations in the gulf of Aden dealing with the threat to shipping from the Houthi Rebels. That amount of real action stations was unheard of for years!
I meant deployed Sep 16
I know that MoD are already considering the T4X, replacement for the Type 45 destroyers. I wonder, is it worth just building more Type 45s, or a new ship based off the Type 45 hull? It’s a good design and has a lot of potential that it isn’t being reached. I think we should stop building famine & feast and instead continuously build them. Start with a class of 12 ships and build each one over 18 months. Then instead of replacing them with a completely new destroyer we just sell off the older ones and replace with newer ones,… Read more »