HMS Defender was in Glasgow at the weekend.

HMS Defender returned to the River Clyde for a four-day visit to her affiliated city.

Launched in December 2009, HMS Defender is the fifth of the Royal Navy’s six Type 45 destroyers. Together with her sister vessels, Defender is one of the most advanced warships ever constructed.

The Type 45 Destroyer, which was built on the Clyde by BAE Systems, was berthed at Govan’s King George V Docks, just a mile downriver from where she was built.

Earlier in the month, HMS Defender monitored a three-strong group of Russian warships and maintained contact with the force as it continued its journey past the British Isles.

Assisted by her Wildcat helicopter from 815 Naval Air Squadron, the Portsmouth-based destroyer shadowed the Russian trio – guided-missile frigate Admiral Grigorovich and two Stereguschiy II-class corvettes, Soobrazitelny and Stoikiy.

RAF Typhoons and P-8A Poseidon aircraft from RAF Lossiemouth also worked in coordination with Defender to monitor the Russian vessels.

“HMS Defender is the fleet’s quick reaction escort, which means we’re ready to respond to any threats to the nation’s safety or security,” said Commander Peter Evans, HMS Defender’s Commanding Officer.

“Escorting ships through UK waters is routine activity for the Royal Navy and demonstrates our commitment to the vital sea lanes upon which the UK depends. Defender and her crew have been engaged on operations over the past three years, covering four major oceans and most of the world’s seas – and so we’re accomplished at missions such as this.”

Tom Dunlop
Tom Dunlop
Tom has spent the last 13 years working in the defence industry, specifically military and commercial shipbuilding. His work has taken him around Europe and the Far East, he is currently based in Scotland.

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

49 COMMENTS

    • Royal Navy Begins NSM Anti-Ship Missile Upgrade On Type 23 Frigate
      “The Royal Navy’s Type 23 frigate HMS Somerset announced the commencement of Naval Strike Missile (NSM) upgrade work.”

      LINK

      • NEWS FROM THE FLIGHT DECK

        Unable to make the connection between the first and second posts.

        Why not join LM they have a shortage of spare parts at the moment so one more would help 😂

        Not a Lot of F-35s Are Flying Right Now

        LINK

      • Try this.

        US Carrier Strike Group Trained With British and Norwegian Forces in the High North

        “The Norwegian frigate KNM Otto Sverdrup’s live-fire shooting with the Norwegian-produced advanced sea target missile NSM off Vesterålen, likely in the Andøya shooting field, Northern Norway. (Video: The Norwegian Navy)”

        LINK

    • I think it will be a real shame if the T83 drops the SAMPSON style mast mounted AESA radar for AEGIS style arrays mounted on the super structure like we have seen in pictures.

      While anti ship ballistic missile are a problem, sea skimming anti ship missiles will always be a bigger threat. Only one country has ballistic ASM while dozens have see skimming missiles. A ballistic missile will always give ample warning time maybe 15 mins or more and can always be jammed where as a sea skimming missile will only give seconds.

      I really don’t see any need to change radar on T83 just update SAMPSON and role it in to new hulls. We can also copy SAMP/T and have a land based version to give economies of scale.

      AAW destroyers should not be seen as floating ABM platforms by in large but should concentrate on fleet defence. If floating ABM platforms are required then better to use an entirely different system like AEGIS mounted on a big fat hull with lost of power. The US proposed this before with San Antonio class and Japan is currently working on something similar.

      • Yes, this was posted on here, so a very worthwhile investment.

        “Under this agreement, BAE Systems will maintain and upgrade the existing radars. There will also be a rollout of technology upgrades to both systems already in use and those to be installed on the Royal Navy’s new Type 26 frigates, currently being constructed by BAE Systems in Glasgow.

        Furthermore, the MOD and BAE Systems will jointly invest an additional £50 million in developing the next generation of radar technology. This initiative is aimed at addressing emerging threats such as ballistic missiles and drones. The MOD is contributing £37.5 million, while BAE Systems is investing £12.5 million in research and development.”

      • The problem the RN face is that we don’t have the financial luxury of creating a dedicated ABM ship. So we must expand the capabilities of the fleet’s current air defence ship.

        There’s currently one country that has anti-ship ballistic missiles (ASBM) definitely in production, which is China. Having short, medium and long range missiles primarily designed to attack carriers, LHDs etc. On the same bandwagon, Iran did a number of trial ballistic missile firings in the past few years. Showing they can hit an anchored barge some 100km off their southern coast. They probably have these now in production. But can they hit a moving ship? Is it worth the risk not taking the threat seriously? Russia have also claimed that Iskander M can attack moving ships. But this has not been independently verified. Russia do however prefer using anti-ship cruise missiles ranging from subsonic sea skimmers, supersonic high divers and probable hypersonic Zircons.

        The T45 currently has a very good radar sensor combination, with the L-band D1850M and the S-band Sampson. However, it could be better!

        Staring with the S1850M, this is a passive electronically scanned array (PESA) radar that performed better than expected during trials. But that was some 20+ years ago, technology has moved on. Thales have made the SMART-L MM. This still operates in the L-band as per the SMART-L that the S1850M is based on. But it is now an active electronically scanned array (AESA). However, it is still a single mechanically rotated array.

        If it was my decision and there was money available. I would have four of the MM panel panels fitted to the ship. This will give the ship the ability to continuously and simultaneously scan all four cardinal directions. But because it’s an AESA panel, then it’s capable of multi-beam transmissions. Thereby allowing you to assign a beam to a target of interest whilst still sweeping the sky.

        The MM version is currently fitted to the Dutch De Zeven Provinciën-class frigates. But Italy are also looking at replacing their S1850Ms fitted to their Horizon class with the MM version. The MM has a proven very long detection range at over 1500km. It is very capable of tracking space based objects. It was used to help target a medium range ballistic missile, that was then shot down by a US SM3 missile during a Formidable Shield exercise. So if the T45/83 is to have an anti-ballistic missile capability. Then it should have at least a single MM radar as a minimum.

        For primary target identification and tracking, the T45 uses Sampson. Having the two array placed back to back and some 40m above sea level. Gives the ship an expanded radar horizon over hull mounted fixed panel arrays. However, like S1850M the two array are mechanically rotated to give a 360 field of view in azimuth.

        I might of mentioned before the pros and cons of the two arrays rotating once every 2 seconds. Plus pretty much all ships and the T45 included, have a radar blind spot directly above the ship. Which is due to how the fixed panel arrays generate their electronically formed beams.

        To improve Sampson and keep the extended radar horizon. There are a number of options. However the additional top weight will limit the choices.

        The first option would be changing the arrangement of the two rotating panels to three panels. It would be preferable to have four panels fixed on the relative cardinal points. But the additional weight would mean that they’d have to be placed lower on the mast. Three is probably the limit.

        The second option is having the three panels mechanically rotated, rather than fixed. This is to mitigate the beam’s transmission and reception power drop-off as the beam steers closer to the array’s edges. By rotating the panels gives the option of slowing down or stopping the array facing the threat. Whilst still being capable of scanning the sky with the other two panels. Plus you could still rotate the arrays and rely on backwards and forwards scanning to keep the target in view.

        The third option is to fill in the dead zone directly above the ship. This can be done using a fourth Sampson array but placed so it points directly up. The latest BAe sketch of a future destroyer shows such a panel in front of the aft funnel.

        These combined options will keep the T45/83 ahead of the competition by giving the ship a full hemispherical radar coverage. Not even the Flight 3 Arliegh Burkes with the SPY-6 will have this capability, But when combined with the extremely long range detection that the SMART-L MM can give. The ship would have a truly outstanding capability.

        Now if you want to discuss missiles….

    • Will the NSM fit out be just 2x4as it looks like there’s enough space for 4×4? Even if 2 x 4 are just FFBNW?
      Still like to see the Mk41s space and sides of the Aster silos utilised more fully, either more than 24 CAMM, can they squeeze in 32-36? That’ll get the missile shot count to 80+.
      And maybe some hypersonic ABM Aster-EX (pardon the pun) in the works!?

      • And correct me if I’m wrong but why isn’t the UK involved with MBDA on HYDIS2 the ABM interceptor? Aren’t we going to need something more powerful than the latest Aster’s eventually? Hoping the powers that be have got this covered. It would be a shame to not be so involved with European developments in order just to put others missiles into the MK41s.
        Completely off topic, what about Ukraine now ordering up to 1000 CV90s. Speaks volumes, pardon the pun! Sure hope they make many good choices for the British Army.

  2. Nice of the ship to be back home. These ships really are good looking.
    I wonder if the navy is working on some air, surface drone defence for its ships. The ships already have good ECM os perhaps that can jam most systems. If 50+ drones all head to the ship at the same time current guns and missiles may not be enough. While drones may not sink a ship it’s still enough to create problems.

    • Sounds like a good argument for 57mm and 40mm to be fitted. Is such an integrated system with programmable ammo a better choice than Phalanx perhaps? The Type 31 gun fit has been derided by many, but perhaps it is just the ticket to deal with drone swarms.

      • Could well be the answer. Phalanx role is to put fire so much metal that hopefully some hits the target and stops it hitting the ship.
        These programmable ammo seem to be trying to stop the target using much less ammo but that ammo knows exactly what to do to hit the target.
        If the programmable ammo can work as advertised it’s a great solution. Both systems can complement each other.

  3. Looking at the video, I initially though, you’re right it is windy, as the flapping plastic on the pipe made it appear as if it was rolling towards the camera. 😀😀
    So great pictures as usual George. Cheers for the update.

  4. These are really great ships. Its very gratifying to see how we have hacked our way through the troubles of pioneering power plants to see them mature; new engines, Sea-Ceptor, Aster Block 1, NSM, radar upgrades….Brilliant!
    Is it too late to put Asters into the Mk41 of a couple of the later build T31s?

    • CAMM is replacing Aster 15 on T45 for local area defence. Are you proposing Block 1NT or Aster 30 for T31? Wide area defence is outside their remit and radar/systems capability.

      • But if you invested in a really good integrated air defence system, the Aster 30 could be carried by the T31 and cued by the T45. The navy is moving to this with FADS.

      • I guess I’m floating some questions / opportunities. Is there (still ) a view that 6 AAW destroyers should be 8? What about the additional effect on T45 availability of the PIP work? Do we need to do anything before T83 or just sit and wait? Aster can be fired from Mk 41 and the Ivor Huitfeld has the same hull as T31. Just as T32 could be additional ASW if we fit quieting at build time so too it could be extra AAW if we fit upgraded radars and systems. It could be what we want it to be. As regards ‘remit’ T31 started life as a ‘credible’ frigate. Since then it looks like we will add NSM and Mk 41. Put a 5in main gun on it and its morphed into a cruiser! Maybe this is a debate for another article, but I wonder if it is being had in the RN.

        • Believe PIP is being expedited to a reasonable degree by having CL and BAES conducting retrofit on HMS Daring and Dragon in parallel, simultaneously. Double the shipyards halve project duration.

          Absolutely believe quietening measures and a robust ASW capability for all significant surface warships, will be mandatory for self preservation from 2030. ChiCom SSNs will stalk the unprotected, at a minimum in the Indo-Pacific, but it could easily be in the Atlantic as well, now that it has been revealed ChiComs have established a presence in Cuba. 🤔😳

    • Are you advocating a radar upgrade for the T31s too? Asters haven’t even been tried in a Mk41. They may be no good reason to suppose they won’t work, but it would be a process to integrate them. I suspect the T31 missile upgrade path will be through the Anglo-Polish FCM instead.

      • Per my reply to RW I suppose I am reminding us all just how big a ship T31 is. And the growth opportunity options that this gives us. It seems to me that one of these options might be to significantly increase the RN AAW fleet quite quickly if we want to.

        • The question is will we run short of AAW before we run short of ASW? They may be fairly big, but I don’t think we can turn T31s into a credible all-round cruiser. If we have to pick, it’s looking to me like we’ll need ASW first. That either means T32 is ASW or we adapt T31s. With the life extention of Westminster up in the air and the possibility of other ASW T23s running into similar problems, a crash in ASW capability might come sooner rather than later.

          My preference is to join the Dutch on their destroyer replacement programme to add lower end AAW.

          • The cruiser reference was of course just the use of exaggeration to emphasise a point.
            I am not coming at this thinking from the perspective of ‘when will we run out’ of something or other.
            I can’t prove this, but I believe that the proposed reduction of army numbers was only half the equation, and that a decision has been taken at a high level (to use that money ) to fund a significant increase in the RN and RFA.
            I would agree securing our ASW capacity is both urgent and important. Quiet T32 or late build T31 could be part of that.

          • 👍👍 Absolutely agree, though retrofitting T-31 may prove to be both a significant cost and technical risk. Gunbuster could render an educated opinion. Certainly T-32 and T-83 should address ASW.
            In extremis, could T-31 be fitted w/ hull sonar and a tail? Certainly less than ideal, but it might be feasible. 🤔

    • Ummm… believe all those upgrades are future tense for HMS Defender. Not certain when scheduled. Anyone? 🤔

  5. what a picture like this shows is how high above sea level the sensors on the type 45 are. I’m not sure the difference in hight of the sensors on an AB vs a type 45 but it will make a difference to the radar horizon.

    It will be really interesting to see how the RN move forward with FADS and how this will impact on the T45..will we finally see some form of much newer CEC.

  6. The Type 055 destroyer armed with YJ-21, and the Type 093 boat, will cause major problems for the RN when they go on their next adventure with the US in Chinese waters. Does the T45 have a credible solution to counter the hypersonic YJ-21?

    • The next time a T45 goes into international waters claimed by China (with or without the US), I hope we won’t be at war, so I wouldn’t expect the Chinese to be firing anything at us. If I knew if there was a credible solution, I doubt I’d post it here (although there’s something pretty obvious). Think of YJ-21 as a smaller, shipborne DF-21.

      • The Royal navy’s main way to counter magic missiles on a t55 is to fire a torpedo from the Astute submarine hiding under it.

        CSG 21 proved very adept at countering even the quietest Chinese submarines and the type 55 is big noisy beast, lots of missiles and launch tubes and power for radars but very noisy and unable to perform ASW against high submarine threats.

        In a shooting war they would be confined to shallow water where SSN’s could not get them.

    • Yes T45 has basic intercept capability with aster 30 to take on JY 21 in the same way Patriot is currently knocking Kinzahl out of the sky. (If JY 21 even exists)

      Much will depend on the distance the missile is fired from and just how much manoeuvres at terminal guidance a missile can do travelling at Mach 10 which is probably not very much unless the Chinese have secured a supply of unobtanium from pandora or vibranium from Wakanda.

      The beam on SAMPSON can also be targeted at a high azimuth to jam the speaker on a radar guided ballistic missile.

      Clearly the Chinese have used their supply of Pim particles to allow a radar to penetrate the immensely hot plasma of a hypersonic weapon to find a warship though which is a feet no one in the west has ever been smart enough to do.

      It’s quite astounding that the Chinese can’t make a fully functional modern turbot jet engine yet they are able to overcome the laws of physics at will when it comes to “hypersonic” missiles.

      • Love to see what a depleted uranium or tungsten dart fired from a Phalanx would do to a vehicle traveling towards it at Mach 10? Pretty kinetically spectacular I’d imagine!

        • The Russian/Chinese hypersonic missile capability is much exaggerated. The principle is purely kinetic brute force to overcome any kind of defence, hoping the missile body remains intact, and hits what it is supposed to. To defend against, I would assume, as in the Patriot missile tactics would be to knock it off course when the warhead detonates. I could not see the rounds from a Phalanx having much of an impact? The bullets would just burn up in the plasma in the air around the missile?

          • If your talking sea skimming missile it’s very hard to dodge the debris from a direct missile hit. Much easier from a ballistic missile although probably impossible for CWIS to hit a ballistic missile

    • Best solution is not getting detected and avoiding a foreign solution for the enemy. Even a 2000 mile, Mach 20 missile needs to know where a ship is to launch at it. The longer the travel time to the target the further the target can move. So the missile needs mid course corrections from something and a seeker or some other assets to have eyes on target to pass the information to the missile.
      It’s often overlooked that finding a target and getting a missile on the target is a tough job.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here