HMS Dragon is scheduled to work alongside coalition and regional partners throughout her time away, say the Royal Navy.

According to a release, she will be focused on providing regional maritime security, including counter-terrorism and anti-smuggling activities.

Commander Michael Carter-Quinn, Commanding Officer of HMS Dragon, said:

“Today’s departure on operations has been achieved through the hard work and support of my ship’s company, their families and the wider defence enterprise in ensuring that we are materially and mentally ready to meet any of the challenges that we may face over the coming months.

We look forward to the opportunities that will present themselves over this deployment to promote the United Kingdom’s commitment to regional security, working with partner nation navies to maintain and develop relationships and common capabilities.”

The Type 45 destroyer is one of the most advanced air-defence vessels in the world. So powerful is the vessels SAMPSON radar, from a position near Glasgow, it could monitor the air traffic over all of Scotland.

The US Naval War College has suggested that the SAMPSON radar is capable of tracking 1,000 objects the size of a cricket ball travelling at three times the speed of sound

The UK’s National Audit Office reported that, during an “intensive attack”, a single Type 45 could simultaneously track, engage and destroy more targets than five Type 42 destroyers operating together.

0 0 vote
Article Rating
Notify of
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Daniele Mandelli

It’s all good that it can track cricket balls and is so advanced.

There are only 6! So what’s that, 4 available? Too few.

Should be 2 dedicated to the CBG at all times.

Need lots more cheaper vessels for presence tasks.


With the state of funding at the moment, I would consider it a win if we saw one type 23 (and then 26) permanently assigned to each QE carrier. As far as a dedicated cbg (2 type 23s, 1 type 45 etc) permanently assigned for each rotation, it ain’t gonna happen. We don’t have the funding and the navy isn’t being designed in that fashion. Current planning I believe will allow for a one off cbg of 2 type 23s, one 45 and an astute (once we have 7), where the duties of the 23 and 45 are backfilled by… Read more »

Daniele Mandelli

This is interesting John. Thank you.

Would that ratio improve if we can get enough T31 and B2 in the water?


Hello Daniele. Yes I do believe the ratio would improve if we did get enough 31s and b2s in the water. Currently though, as others have said, we really need to get a grip on our man power and then spare parts availability. If we do achieve that, I would love to see an extra type 31 (pushing numbers from 5-6) however I appreciate that’s a way off at the moment though. Likewise it would be great if they stuck to their plan for 8 type 26s. Thinking about the type 45s, if there is some serious intent to use… Read more »


Is that a stock photo or is she deploying without Harpoon? Or am I blind?

Paul T

Rfn_Weston – the Harpoons are the recovered systems from the retired T22 Batch 3 Frigates,so enough to equip 4 out of the 6 T45’s,im not sure if they are rotated between vessels to suit deployments or are a permanent fixture though.


Whilst there have been many discussions about Type 45 armament, does anyone know why the Harpoon quad launchers were not removed from those vessels transferred to Chile? Or were they not fitted with Harpoon?

Paul T

pompeyblokeinoxford – yes the three Type 23’s sold to Chile were indeed fitted with Harpoon,unless the customer specifies anything different I cant see why they would be removed as part of the deal.


Hi Paul T, yes I was aware we only had 4 systems between the 6 ships. I can’t for the life of me understand why, if a lack of available systems is the reason, that this deployment wasn’t deferred to allow Diamond to return to port and transmit the harpoon before Dragon set sail?! It really beggars belief.


Transfit… not transmit… Damn autocorrect *rolls eyes*

Robert Blay

And who do you think we will be firing harpoons at?? The RN hasn’t once fired a harpoon in anger at anyone ever, let’s keep a reality check on these things, an Astute will do fine if we have to take on another nations vessels, and on a routine deployment like this, id say the chances of that happening are pretty slim to zero.


You dont need Harpoon fitted all the time. Even the dedicated shooters, the T23s, don’t have all the launchers filled unless its an active deployment.
And as stated…Harpoon is an RoE nightmare and unless its a Red Storm Rising blue water shooting war the chances of having to use it or get permission to use it are slim


Call me old fashioned but if a situation arose where we did require an anti ship missile capability and this asset is the forward deployed one, I’m not sure having to turn around and head to port to fit Harpoon would be the best option. Someone else mentioned the cost of rectifying the capability gap is an almost insignificant amount vs the capability upgrade. Those that say RN doctrine is for Astute to tackle surface combatants… that’s just the doctrine being tailored to the budget. Unfortunately budget dictates the majority of our defence strategy as opposed to a comprehensive review… Read more »


She is indeed deploying without Harpoon fitted.


@Rfn_weston If rectifying a shortfall in capability requires a new system, it is not cheap or easy. Those that espouses “plug and play” “bolt on systems” etc have no clue what is involved with fitting and integrating a system onto a complex warship. Cabling removal for old systems, new cabling to go in. Hull Strengthening. New deck mount steel work. Interfaces to the Combat system. Mutual Interference conformity. Extra Fire fighting equipment. Training and Documentation. Shore Support . Shore maintenance and repair facilities. Changes to tactics and operational SOPs. Risk mitigation for accident and wartime damage. If it was easy… Read more »

Mr Bell

Good spot. No harpoons on deck. These ships should really get the strike length mk41 vl system fitted so they can really be air warfare destroyers but have a limited and better general purpose application. I think they have top weight and space for 3-4 6 cell mk41 vl systems? We need to get them fitted. I cannot for the love of me understand why the RN cannot get permission and funds to do this. We already have too few warships, this is about maximising the arnaments and application of what little we have got left. The type 45 still… Read more »


Good evening Mr. Bell

I completely agree with you but read somewhere before – and I’m not sure how accurate this is so take it for what it’s worth – but the money allocated for Mk41 VLS on the Type 45 was diverted to pay for the propulsion issues. Sorry state of affairs but none of us on this site are surprised any more.

In my opinion, they will never get the VLS; HMG will wait until the Type26 come online which are supposed to have them and not bother to fit them to the Type 45s.


I agree with your opinion David. A T45 participated a couple of years ago (or thereabouts) in a joint ABM exercise, from memory off the West coast of Scotland I think, where she participated in tracking the target but obviously couldn’t engage. I can see that as the RN model going forward, a T45 tracking and cueing a launch from a T26’s Mk41 if the RN ever gets serious about adding ABM capability. And those T26 Mk41 will give the RN at least some surface vessels capable of launching TLAM too. I can see those ABM & TLAM scenarios, in… Read more »

Nigel Collins

We need to stop buying cheap and invest heavily in all branches of our armed forces.

Double the number of Type 45’s, increase the number of Type 26’s and build the Iver Huitfeldt frigates instead of the planned Type 23e.

We are so far behind the start line now that the work could be shared across all UK yards as well as building some of the Iver Huitfeldt frigates in Denmark also.

Compare the cost of the Iver Huitfeldt class against the Type 26’s and you’ll see its great value for the money.


For the record the Iver Huitfeldt frigates were only assembled in Denmark using blocks built in Estonia and Lithuania.

Nigel Collins

Thank you Pompeyblokeinoxford, hence the good quality builds at a respectable price!

Just had some work finished on the house by these guys, very hard working and not one complaint.


Crikey how does one get Estonian and Lithuanian ship builders to work on ones House? Do they have a contact number?


“Crikey how does one get Estonian and Lithuanian ship builders to work on ones House?”

Not recommended. I had some fitted bookshelves done. They nearly burned the house down when they tried to weld them in place 🙂


Have they informed the Tug Master that his services may be called upon once they enter the warm gulf waters?
Doesn’t Matter how many ‘Cricket Balls’ it can cope with, if it doesn’t have the power to track and destroy…
As for ‘less is more’ regarding type 42, other potential hostile nations have expanded their navies since then!
It’s truly mind boggling how reckless we can be with our defence capabilities, or should I say, incapabilities?


Nice photo from HMS Dragons twitter page:


Well Harpoon and engine trouble aside that is a fantastic picture!!

Can anyone tell me how common the personalisation (dragon on the bow) is on RN vessels? I am not sure I have seen it so prominently on other ships.

Daniel Baxter

As far as I am aware HMS Dragon is the only Royal Navy vessel to display such a prominent piece of bow art. I have no idea what sort of process was required to get it authorised, perhaps the RN thought they needed to emphasise the Welsh connotations of the name more.


Cheers Daniel ?


It also costs a fortune to put on the bow…

Paul T

Mike- yes the Dragon emblem is unique,according to wiki it was present at the ships launch,was then removed during its first refit but then due to a fundraising campaign led by the British Warships Association re-instated.


That is very interesting. I will look that up. Cheers.


So we can’t even afford or have the capability to deploy an obsolete missile system to protect a 1 billion pound asset, Nevermind looking to equip it with something like the nsm as a stopgap until a missile with the capability that we should have now comes along. A supposed Tier 1/2 military power the modernising defence programme needs to solve this! It is idiotic that it could shoot all the cricket balls down (missiles) but could end up being destroyed by naval gun! The embarked wildcat/merlin doesn’t even have ASM capability! And helicopters never got unserviceable do they! Get… Read more »


A. A Type 45 would never be defeated by a naval gun. They do have two Phalanx CIWS to deal with that. B. Whilst it is true that currently Wildcat/Merlin don’t have any AShM capability this will soon be rectified with the introduction of Martlet and Sea Venom missiles. C. Theres not point putting ASROC on the Type 45 since they only have limited anti-submarine capabilities (a hull mounted sonar i believe). Best leave anti submarine warfare to the experts in the T23s. D. If it can detect a cricket ball then i think its defiantly well suited to detecting… Read more »

Robert Blay

Finally someone who can talk sense! A very good reply Chris.

Paul T

Chris – while I agree with some of your points I have some questions, (A) how can a Phalanx ciws deal with Naval Gunfire ? A simple OTO 76mm mount would outrange it,while it may cope with a few rounds once it gets to 80+ rounds per minute it would be saturated surely – one for Gunbuster perhaps. (C) ASROC is an interesting option,yes as you say leave it to the T23/26 ASW specialists,but as we know hulls are too few,one ship can only be in one place at one time.If a T45 (with bow sonar) lacks ASW capability then… Read more »


Step back from the soapbox, it’ll be alright after a cup of tea! Fair point though.


Robbing Peter to pay Paul. The MOD make me want to bang my head against the wall. We could solve out srmsnemt issues with a hand shake and a swipe of a credit card and the UK would carry on ticking just fine.




How the hell did we get to the poin that knowingly we would have 10 or more years between getting rid of an already obsolete missile and getting a new capable one installed. I mean to actually start a feasibility study barely a few years before removing the former suggests no one even thought about it though I guess in truth untill recently they thought flag waving was all the destroyers were needed for.

Daniele Mandelli

Incompetence of MOD naval staffs?

Or starved of money and projects pushed permanently to the right?

Robert Blay

The RN has much more Important things to spend it’s money on then to keep an obsolete weapon system in service that has never been used and more then likely never will.

Daniele Mandelli

That’s fine Robert I don’t disagree that there are other priorities. It is the capability of actually having some sort of ASM system. I think that is what galls people, certainly me. Other ships of navies around the world have them and they might be even less likely to use them. If having an ASM system is desirable then a billion pound asset should indeed have one IMO. And that does not answer Spy’s question concerning lack of interest in a replacement. Maybe also having an obsolete weapon is better than no weapon at all? The Russians I believe are… Read more »


Since the RN already possesses Harpoon launchers and missiles, it seems a false economy to not utilize them. According to the linked article, it seems there’s still some life in the old gal with Block II+ upgrades at about $240,000 per missile. Very inexpensive considering the increase in capability.


I’m suprised it got to keep the red dragon, I wonder how much longer before it removed.

On a more serous note, when did people start throwing cricket balls at ships and how on earth do they get them to three times the speed of sound.


Jimmy Anderson’s been practicing.


I have a friend who is a naval officer and whilst the wasn’t happy at the lack of a dedicated antiship missile, he did say that the aster missiles could do the job if needs be.
But what do you defend your ship with if you’ve fired all your anti aircraft/missile missiles at ships and not what they were intended for


With so much negative news around the engines and breakdowns, i wonder why they decided to send to the gulf, an area with very warm waters that are likely to cause further problems. Would seem better to wait until the fix before sending to the region, especially as the carriers are not ready yet, and so no pressing reason to do it instead of a frigate.

David E Flandry

So a billion pound warship is going to be used for anti-piracy and anti-smuggling activities? Send a
patrol ship for that!

Daniele Mandelli

We don’t appear to have any!

I agree with the sentiment. River Batch 2, T31, some number of cheaper assets are needed to relieve our first line vessels.

How about more RFA type vessels instead of a warship? Acting as a floating mother ship?

With a det of RM.
With helicopters.
With UAV.
With ORC / RRC / RIB

Could this be a cheaper yet still effective option?

No wonder the QEC will have no escorts if they are all off doing this sort of stuff.


The rivets fell of.

Anthony D

Why not put helicopters on the actual cargo ships, cheap ones with just a machine gun mount and a radio?


Not just from when I was serving on ships in the Gulf but I also have lots of experience with T23 and T45 working in the Gulf and the temperatures experienced there. Currently at 0600 its a balmy 34 degs at around 50% humidity and it should peak at around 39 degs at 80+% this afternoon. Its basically a 2 pairs of overalls day…again! Sea temp is sat around the low 30s Degs. By the time Dragon gets here the air temps will start to come down to mid 20s or lower and the sea temp will drop off considerably.(… Read more »

Peter Shaw

We really do need to increase the defence budget. Six type 45 destroyers is simply not enough for our operations, the same with just 8 type 26 frigates and seven Astute submarines. The obvious place to look for cash is the very bloated overseas aid budget. That budget is nearly 1/3 of our entire defence budget for god’s sake! Anyone who argues that it should be 0.7% is clearly insane. I would trim it to 0.001% of GDP and transfer the bulk to the MoD. In many ways the military have been doing peace keeping and humanitarian activities over decades… Read more »

David E Flandry

Who determined that foreign aid should be 0.7 % of GNP? A committee of civilians I’ll bet. Make it 0.6 % and that yields 2.7 billion or so for the MoD. Then cobble up some fancy term that makes it sound like “aid”.