The Ministry of Defence has detailed the status of each Type 45 Destroyer in the fleet.
The information came to light in response to a written question submitted in the House of Commons.
Mark Francois, Member of Parliament for Rayleigh and Wickford, asked:
“To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, what the sea-going status is of each of the six Type 45 Destroyers; and which of those ships are (a) operationally available, (b) undergoing maintenance and/or a refit and (c) temporarily unavailable due to propulsion problems.”
Jeremy Quin, Minister of State for the Ministry of Defence, responded:
“HMS DEFENDER is currently deployed as part of the Carrier Strike Group (CSG21) while
HMS DIAMOND has experienced some technical issues and has detached from CSG21 for maintenance, inspection and defect rectification.
HMS DARING and HMS DUNCAN are currently undergoing planned deep maintenance.
HMS DAUNTLESS, the first of the Type 45 Destroyers to undergo a Power Improvement Project upgrade, is expected to return to sea for trials this year.
HMS DRAGON is undergoing a period of planned maintenance in advance of further operational commitments.”
As pointed out above, HMS Diamond is temporarily detached from HMS Queen Elizabeth’s Carrier Strike Group group after suffering a defect. You can read more about that here.
HMS Diamond suffers serious defect during Carrier Strike Group deployment
Also of note is a recent announcement regarding the firepower of these vessels. MBDA UK has been awarded an 11-year contract to integrate the Common Anti-Air Modular Missile, often referred to as Sea Ceptor, into the Type 45 destroyers’ Sea Viper weapon systems.
In addition to this, a 10-year contract with Eurosam will provide a refresh of the Aster 30 missiles that are currently in use, say the Ministry of Defence.
MBDA also say on their website:
“The work will see CAMM (Sea Ceptor) paired with an upgraded Sea Viper command and control (C2) system for the first time. CAMM offers both world-leading close-in and local-area air defence, and will complement Aster 30, strengthening the anti-air defence capability of the Royal Navy. Fitting CAMM onto the Type 45s will give the destroyers a 50% increase in the number of its air defence missiles. Installation will be via 24 additional launcher cells, and the Sea Viper C2 will get a technology upgrade, giving it a major increase in processing power. The existing 48 Sylver cells on the Type 45 will now be solely for the longer-range Aster 30 missile, which is also subject to a recently announced mid-life refresh. This will see the missile remain in service throughout the life of the Type 45s.”
So we have 1 Destroyer active. That’s pretty damn appalling to be honest.
It does seem very, very odd that 4 of them would be in serious states of maintenance where reactivation and rearming will be a very slow process.
I can see now why SoS wanted to get more ships operational before asking for more ships.
Trouble is that fixing the ships to make them operational in the medium to long term inevitably makes them non operational in the short term.
Don’t think they quite got the balance right here.
One is in a regular FTSP in the UK . It’s a 4 week alongside maintenance period. Usually the ship remains at less than 48 hrs notice for sea. Even Diamond will still be at 48 hrs or less notice for sea despite the defect to the GT.
Even ships in planned docking periods rarely go below 72 or 96 hours notice for sea.
You can always get Ship out if you need to surge units… They may have reduced OC (operational capability) and not look pretty but it can be done.
Ah, realism and education.
Much appreciated Gunbuster, ta muchly.
So apart from some bad luck for Diamond and the longer time for the PIP, not too bad shape really. 4 ships at potentially 96 hours notice or better.
Cheers CR
I’d be amazed if the ships mid PIP can be reactivated in 96 hours with bits of drivetrain all over the place and holes cut in them.
However, I defer to your more recent knowledge.
I was just thinking as I read this again, ‘The MOD could much better answer this if they included NTM states’ although I wonder if that would be sensitive.
What happens when we cut the number built to six and then take a gamble on the propulsion system that turns out to be duff. This is the short sightedness of British defence policy. In a hostile environment we could easily lose the sole T45 and either have to withdraw or lose the carriers they’re supposed to protect. We just don’t have the numbers of anything to be taken really seriously.
So one is available and active. Somewhat depressing.
1/6 – pretty lame. Slow clap for the MoD.
Not a good show at all. At they really need to crack on with the Camm and upgrades and get each ship kitted out with some newer ASMs, why not fit
for up 8-12-16? And a triple torpedo systems.
And not to sound too flippant but could they build a couple more newer ABM T45s in the mean time? Why wait another 10 years before the T83 comes along.
Well, someone’s going to say it, so it may as well be me:
This shows that 6 Destroyers is NOT ENOUGH to provide sufficient operationally available escorts for a 2-carrier fleet, it is barely enough for one!
As usual, politicians don’t exactly answer the question, so I’ll summarise:
a) operationally available/deployed: (1) HMS Defender;
b): b1) undergoing maintenance: (2) HMS Dauntless, HMS Dragon;
b2) in deep refit: (2) HMS Daring, HMS Duncan;
c) temporarily unavailable due to propulsion problems: (1) HMS Diamond (Taranto, Italy).
So one spin is that only 1 of the 6 is fully functional and available, which seems like a disaster, and the flip side of the coin is that 1 is deployed, and a further 2 could be available within weeks, with a 4th due to be available later this year.
To me, even the best spin is not good, that with only 6 units, having 2 in deep refit means that at any given time 1/3 are unavailable. With 8 hulls, that ratio would drop to 1/4 and would have allowed scope to have more vessels operationally available at any given time.
You have my vote…
Send your thank you card to one George Brown. Financially illiterate clown who thought he had a chance of running the World Bank.
George Brown? Did you mean Gordon Brown?
What this have to do with Gordon Brown?
The project and engineering team made very bad work.
George Brown, that takes me back – the phrase ‘tired and emotional’ was invented for him. You mean Gordon Brown presumably?
Duncan and Darling have both been refloated in water, and I seen a photo of the firefighting crew training on board.
Is there a crew shortage?
Darling? As in Alistair?
😅
Yes and no. The RN certainly has a lack of fully trained personnel, and not enough to man all the vessels in the Fleet at the same time. But, one “silver lining” is that during the Covid outbreak, recruitment numbers have been up, so much so that additional INT (Initial Naval Training) entries have been run at BRNC Dartmouth and HMS Collingwood, as well as the normal intakes at HMS Raleigh – so as these sailors progress the shortages should ease. The move to unmanned MCM vessels also frees up trained sailors as the existing manned MCM’s are phased out or mothballed.
considering the Americans have over 50 i belive, the R/N is looking shamfully short with ONE does it not.
we should have had at leat the original 12,
I’m sure most of us agree that more T45 hulls would have been better, whether it was 8, 12 or even 15.
That debate is, of course, over, but the debate as to what replaces the T45’s (T83 apparently) and how many are to be built is just starting, and I think we should be making the case that 6 T83’s will be insufficient for future needs.
Personally, if it were up to me (which it isn’t), and money was no object (which it is) I would order and build 8+ T83’s, and then mothball the 6 T45’s to be re-activated if there were a war. Same with the T23’s – hold some in reserve even when the T26’s are up and running.
War with a major power such as Russia or China is unlikely to break out overnight, but who knows what might happen? Not many people expected Russia to annex the Crimea, and China is perfectly capable of creating an incident with Taiwan or one of the “disputed” islands.
Having some flexibility would make us more prepared for what might happen in the next 30-40 years, put us to a 1938 state rather than a 1933 state of preparedness.
I believe Daring is undergoing the first stage of PIP and will be the next vistor to Cammell Lairds. Dauntless seems behind with hers, but she is the guinea pig so no surprise there. Have no idea about Duncan. All being well Diamond and Dragon will be available shortly….. Its not good, 6 was never going to be enough! Let’s hope somebody is paying attention and learning from this………
The 6 month PIP has now drug on to over 14 months.
Yes, that is quite strange.
A book i’ll buy would be the History of T45 Class.
Drug? What have pharmaceuticals got to do with it?
I’m sorry to raise again the consequences of the aircraft carrier programme. But it must be obvious ,even to their most enthusiastic supporters, that the enormous cost of the ships and their F35s (£7b+ £9b) has inflicted massive damage on the rest of the fleet. T42 replacement halved so that we now have just 1 air defence destroyer available. T23s to be replaced by what are little more than OPVs.
What is the point of having 2 carriers we can’t afford to equip with full air wings?
Given the stated aims of operating CSG and 2 LRGs with forward basing for Type 31, it’s clear that we haven’t got the escorts to protect these groups properly.
Whilst the army has lost the plot and £billions, the RN has a plan
but it looks increasingly unrealistic and potentially risky.
The cost of the carriers was not what has materially affected this.
It was the focus on wars in hot sandy places and also the lack of anyone to fight with a near peer airforce.
When T45 came about it was probably most likely to be used to deal with rogues likes Sadam etc.
The sandbox wars and much of the UOR procurement were funded outside the main defence budget. Looking at the timelines of decisions on the destroyer and carrier projects: the reduction of the former from 12 in 2000, to 8 in 2004 to 6 in 2008; by which time a decision to proceed with the carriers had been made with some, albeit underestimated,idea of costs, it is inconceivable that the commitment to 2 large carriers had no effect on decisions on other procurement.
Whatever happened we are now stuck with 2 carriers we have insufficient aircraft for and far too few air defence destroyers to guarantee adequate protection. Whilst it is good news that they will be uparmed with SeaCeptor, it’s not much use if most of them are stuck in port.
We now have a seriously unbalanced navy. It is likely to remain so for years. The only shorter term remedy would be a substantial uparming of the Type31s, allowing them to operate in the air defence role to supplement the T45 fleet.
Even if we only had one full air wing for a carrier, having two carriers makes complete sense. Otherwise you end up with a France situation, where if your carrier is in for any kind of repairs / refit you have exactly 0 availability. What happens if a war breaks out and your only carrier is sat in a drydock somewhere? You are buggered.
Yes, very true!
The best anti-air and air-ground weapon on the face of the planet is the F35. If we hadn’t built the Carriers we would have had an additional 4 Type 45’s that’s it. If your concerned by the slow pace of F35 procurement I doubt there’s anyone on this site who’d disagree with you. The Carriers though are not the problem.
You only really need one airwing as both carriers were never planned to operate together with an air wing each. As for the “sandbox” wars, the money came from the defence budget and the extra UOR budget, by way of deferring ongoing projects, year after year, and re-directing money to the UORs etc. While it wasn’t directly taken straight out of the defence budget its inconceivable that the money used for the sandbox wasn’t then taken away from the military in the short term. But alas you are correct insofar that 6 x 45s are certainly not enough and the T31 programme should be looked at with an increase in £ per hull to increase capability and deployabilty. With a couple more (which would be nice). Cheers.
The net additional costs of Afghanistan from 2001 and Iraq from 2003 were funded by the Treasury’s reserve outside the main defence budget. There may well have been a knock on effect on governments attitude to the core budget but that has never been admitted.
Agree that a an upgrade to T31s announced spec would be the simplest way to ensure we have enough AAW escorts.
“Whatever happened we are now stuck with 2 carriers we have insufficient aircraft for” – By mid-decade we will have 45 deployable F-35B, excluding the 3 in the US.
That’s enough to deploy a significant air wing on our own. We never planned to deploy two full air wings on both carriers simultaneously. In a hot war from mid-decade on we could field 36 F-35B including a squadron of USMC. No other country including the US will field anything close to that in fifth gen aircraft on a single carrier in that time-frame or possibly even in this decade. The USN are only aiming for 14x F-35C in a strike wing of 44 aircraft by 2025 and current plans have them at 16x by 2030 in a similar 44 aircraft strike wing.
“… far too few air defence destroyers to guarantee adequate protection”. Why is it the negative comments always ignore allies? CSG21 is demonstrating how allies play into deploying NATO assets as we speak with two AAW escorts from the US and the Netherlands.
If any remedy is needed then it will be leveraging those relationships with allies to bolster escort numbers, just as we have been escorting CdG and US carriers routinely for years with T45s. Europe alone has a a significant number of extremely capable AAW destroyers, increasingly augmented by AAW frigates.
The first T31 isn’t likely to be operational until late 2026/early 2027 by which time all T45s will be through PIP and the first of them should have the additional 24x CAMM cells fitted.
Opvs don’t carry SAMs or SSMs…
I disagree Peter, if Type 45 team can’t do a good job it is not Carrier team fault.
For the 10th million time. We have never planned to own and operate two carrier airwings. two carriers means one is available to deploy 365 day’s a year to fit around maintenance and refits.
Quite
You are completely wrong. The plan in 2008 when the purchase order was made was to have 2 fully operational carriers to replace the 3 Invincible class. The plan included a published intention to buy 138 F35s, imitating the joint force Harrier idea and replacing both Harrier and Tornado.
Soon after, the financial crisis struck. The build of the carriers was slowed down by Brown leading to higher costs. Cameron wanted to cancel the second carrier and found he couldn’t. The costs of acquiring and running F35 were rising steeply. So the new spin was that we had never intended to operate both carriers at the same time and the 138 purchase was over the whole of the 40 year life of the F35.
Costs continued to rise with the initially planned expenditure on the carriers up from £3.5b to nearly £7b. The 10 year costs of buying and supporting just 48 F35s rose to £9b.
Quite simply, even with the recent £16 b increase in funding to 2024( mainly needed to cover the black hole in the existing equipment plan) the budget is not big enough to fund the original 2008 plan.
Albion and Bulwark were not initially bought to have one available. The current extended readiness approach was devised to save money and manpower. Doing something similar with the carriers was never the original plan.
Even though everything you say is true, It simply was never the intention to be able to deploy two full carrier airwings, that would be 72 F35’s to deploy, plus over 20 helicopters on the carrier’s alone. We were never going to have the manning to do it, especially pilots and engineers. Today we can have both carrier’s operational when refit and maintenance periods allow, allowing one carrier to be held at R2 status (48hrs to deploy if memory serves me correctly)365 day a year, with the 2nd carrier able to take part in traning and exercises with a limited airwing, or taking part in UAV trials for example. That is the reality today, no point dwelling on the past. We have two fantastic carrier’s, a growing fleet of F35’s, and a very bright future of UK carrier aviation.
I’m happy you agree that everything I said is true. I did recheck the details before posting. Even the 2015 SDR included a purchase of 138 F 35s. Remember these were not just to equip the carriers but also replace the RAFs Tornado fleet. So pilot numbers would not have been a major constraint. The total would have allowed both carriers to operate 36 at surge.
What has changed? Firstly the operating costs of F35 are much higher than forecast ( the USAF continue to complain about this and the consequent need to use them less intensively). Second, we have the prospect, albeit distant, of Tempest which the RAF seems to prefer to a larger F35 fleet.
But that looks like leaving us with under equipped carriers unless UCAVs can make up the shortfall.
My only current concern is that the commitment to the carriers has led to a reduction in other vessels that we need to protect both CSG and the 2 new LRGs.
Everyone interested in and supportive of UK defence should also recognise that the new money and future growth plans have been almost lost in the context of the enormous borrowing to deal with covid.
It seems likely even probable that after 2024, budgets will again be under pressure with hard choices about which capabilities might have to be reduced.
F35 was never intended to be a Tornado replacement, and still isn’t. Typhoon took over the Tornado GR role. Most of the Tornado pilots converted to Typhoon or F35, and we are still short on numbers, as the Tornado force shrunk over many year’s. I served in Joint Force Harrier at RAF Cottesmore. And the plan was always for 4 frontline F35 sqn’s with 12 aircraft each, so we could in theory deploy 36 jets on one carrier with the fourth sqn held In reserve, or land based. Never was it planned to massively increase the fleet air arm or RAF manned strength to operate 72+ deployable jets. The numbers simply are not available. And that 4 SQN force was built around buying 138 aircraft. 138 would never all be in service at the same time.
Surely with HMS Diamond suffering problems I hope the Naval Top Brass have plans to put another 45 to Sea ASAP.
Why? we are not at war. Vessels break down, this stuff happens, and available Vessels will already having tasking and exercises planned months ago.
Obviously we are not at War but having 1 from 6 available might mean getting another one ready just in case it has to cover any emergency, there’s nothing wrong with having a degree of Insurance.
We could get some of these vessels to sea In a surprisingly short period if needs must. But if it’s not necessary, we don’t, because it only causes delays further down the line.
No this stuff is not normal.
Change them.
It’s perfectly normal. Keeping complex warships ready to deploy is a very complicated business. These vessels will all be penned in for future deployments and exercises. And to have them available, they need maintenance and refits.
So we should get rid of the worlds most capable air defence destroyer? Ridiculous comment.
I see you don’t even know what should be expected of warship availability…
Tell me should RN get 12 aircraft carriers to have 2 available?
We will also see many times the 2 carriers will crap out in middle of a mission…if that is “so normal”…?
Change. In changing the schedule that you imply is sacred in your “ridiculous” post.
You haven’t a clue pal. Vessels break down, these things happen, and happen to all Navy’s. I have been on RN Vessels myself when something goes wrong, it’s a complex business keeping highly capable warships available.
Commons Defence Committee chairman Tobias Ellwood suggested the situation was “operationally unacceptable”.
And Tobias Ellwood should know better making such comments. HMS Diamond will be back with CSG21 soon enough.
Oh dear Alex, I’m not RN but even I’m aware that the T45 is currently one of the best AAW hulls afloat. 6 isnt enough nope, but that’s where we are. Stuff breaks, it gets fixed, crack on. As we aren’t at war why send a warship on deployment when not fully operational and safe to operate? If we transited to war, I pretty much guarantee 4 of the T45s will be made seaworthy, albeit with limitations in certain areas (it’s called the military, it’s what we do, mitigate weakness and maximise strengths). But when reading your posts your total civilian outlook shows through.
The capacity here for self illusion is telling.
This atitude explain British Leyland…
You’ve replied to yourself….oh dear.
Oh dear, your reply confirms your limited subject matter knowledge, thank you as it saves time in replying to your future incorrect assessments.
Well said mate 👍
Most capable at what? Good sensors but limited magazine especially for long range defense and no missiles for China’s anti ship ballistic missile. Not to mention for anti ship or land attack missiles.
T45 is currently the worlds most capable air defence destroyer. And is going to get even better with another 24 Sea Captors added to it’s load out. That’s 72 missiles. USN destroyers still fire semi active missiles. They carry more, because more will miss the target.
“T45 is currently the worlds most capable air defence destroyer.”
Evidence of that would only have occurred in a war.
But it is irrelevant if they are not even able to escort the carrier
And this issue with T45 also show the mistake of T26(RN version) not have area defence capability.
That RAN RCN Type 26 and Usn FREMM will have and Italian FREMM have.
14 years of multi national exercises and deployments have proven it’s capability. You don’t have to be at war to demonstrate how capable a certain asset would be for real.
Multi national exercise don’t give you much knowledge of enemy capabilities.
And even seeing incompletness of the exercises is dubious that you know yourself well enough
What destroyer(friend or enemy) fired the whole complement of AAW missiles in say 5 minutes, 40 missile in 5 minutes?
What percentage AAW missile fail to launch or drop in own ship due to malfunction? 1 in 100 1 in 1000?
What happen if it is in heavy seas?
You are not from our neck of the woods are you AlexS
Actually the USN is switching over to active missiles and the new Burke III have all new radar
👍
Let me assure you things breaking is absolutely normal.
This is not news. It’s been like this from their inception. Some are normally classed as deep maintenance due to the Navy not being able to crew them all.
It can be spun any way one wishes.
The cancellation of Ships 7 and 8 to bring forward money on T26, a programme itself then reduced from 13 to 8, is the bigger pain.
What seems to often be missing is context.
In the 1990’s and the first decade of this century, when many of the decisions were made behind where we are today, the concept of a conventional peer conflict had largely receded, to be replaced with peace keeping, countering terrorists/insurgencies and containing rogue states. The USSR was no more, Russia was struggling economically and the hope/expectation was that China would integrate into the world economy and adopt more reasonable norms. This view was reinforced with the return of Hong Kong to a one country two systems stated approach, along with situations like the Balkans, Sierra Leone, Afghanistan and Iraq.
In that context, carriers to enforce no fly zones and support/operate as amphibious support made sense. No need for lots of AAW destroyers for that threat environment. No rush for T23 replacement. No concern about overall numbers, especially with the likelihood of operating with allies. That started to change with Georgia in 2008 and then radically changed with the Crimea and Chinese island building in the SCS along with major armed forces expansion by the latter.
So we see the carriers pull back from amphibious ops, at least as far as a close into shore role and the need to be prepared to confront a peer level adversary during their lifetime. The need for high level escorts to counter a peer. Etc, etc.
We are on a path to re-building naval capability at a higher level but it takes time to recover from close to three decades of peace dividend defunding followed by a focus on countering none peer threats.
Excellent explanation. Spot on. 👍
Yep, GHF usually has the answers.
Totally correct. The situation now is very different to the one that existed when the 1998 SDR was conducted and for a decade after that. The mindset that existed then was basically peer threats have more or less evaporated for as far ahead as it is possible to see and the future is global interventionism in its many and varied forms. And this indeed seemed to be the case . . . for a while at least.
Anyone suggesting then that Russia or China might pose a serious security challenge in the not too distant future was either politely dismissed or ridiculed. The crux of the issue is that it is extremely difficult for defence, where capabilities/new equipment take decades to bring to fruition, to keep up with a rapidly changing and increasingly volatile international situation.
Was replacing the WR21s, with MT30s for example, not an option instead of replacing the 2 Wartsila diesels with 3 MTU diesels?
Compared to swapping the GT’s replacing the Diesel Sets was the much cheaper (simpler) option.
Are these stories published just to stair up angry debate. We have had 6 T45’s for a long time now and maintenance and refit cycles are nothing new. Overall, the RN does a fantastic job with vessel availability. Just look at the deployment schedule so far this year. Nothing is ’embarrassing’ or ‘appalling ‘it’s just the reality if maintaining highly sophisticated and capable warships.
Spot on mate, over the last 2-3 years the RN has made sure its assets are planned and available as best it can, and completed just about every task required of it. With the minimum amount of kit, the RN has showed its capabilities in every aspect of warfare. They are currently leading the way in regard to having their shit together in the UK military.
Bravo.
Always with the negative waves, so many on this site. ( says Oddball )
T45 is probably weeks away from having 4 available. Diamond was unforseen but hey ho.
Fleet numbers do go up and down. It’s just how it is. Even if we did have 10-12 T45’s, We wouldn’t have any sat in Portsmouth ready to deploy incase one breaks down. They would all be tasked or already on Operations, or in refit Hope you are keeping well mate.👍
I sometimes wonder the same. But to be fair UKDJ is mostly a news reporting site that largely just repeats whatever is in the source material. What it lacks is context, such as Gunbuster’s comments previously regarding hours notice to put to sea, or your own and others comments on the norms of maintaining and operating a fleet. These articles also always fail to observe that we have allies, who we routinely work with and rely on, especially within NATO. Dependable allies are far more important than having a few extra ships.
Exactly pal. It’s a shame so many take these stories to heart and take them completely out of context compared to real world operations and availability 👍
To answer your first question, “yes”.
Plus we seem to have a few trolls and possible stooges from the Internet Research Agency putting the boot in too.
Video of HMS Diamond entering Taranto, passing the rotating bridge
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eQbLsrDtnFs
Which it did under its own power. So if push came to shove , it could sail with one GT not 2 available for use.
As nobody is doing any shoving, its getting its one duff engine fixed so that it has full operational capability available.
It was known it was moving in own power, just slow.
It can easily move at full speed with all systems running on one engine if it needs to with the DGs as extra load back up.
Its not moving slowly because it only has one GTAlt but because its entering harbour
So, only one operational. Wow. A new low…
Don’t the RN operate a 2/3rd active, 1/3rd reserve rule? So 2 ships should be laid up anyway. The other 4 ships should be available within 48 hours (ish) with at least 2 ships at immediate readiness. The stats given here suggest 50% availability against the required target. This then suggests the RN have half the number of ships needed. Did I miss anything?
T45 have a problematic propulsion system. Until that is changed expect this to continue. HMS Duncan is the first ship being fixed, it was supposed to last 6 months but it is already 14… so even the fix is not going accordingly to plan.
My mistake, HMS Dauntless is the ship doing the first propulsion change.
Reading your past posts it’s not your only mistake…
That tells more about you than about me.
👍
Mmm best of British disgrace this should never ever happend
Disgrace because vessels need refits so they are available for future deployments.🤦♂️ Don’t be ridiculous.
Seeing mixed reports on HMS Daring over the month’s ,did read she was Replacing HMS Bristol in training role,which I found hard to unstand .Do hope it’s truth she’s coming back into service sad to have Type 45 Destroyer sitting in port,when RN short on Escorts 🇬🇧
So the RN only has 1 Destroyer capable of operational service right now???? That is a disgrace. What happens if hostilities break out with Iran, Russia or China, ect? Damn lucky they have America and a few other allies to help.
How did it ever get to this 🙄
A comment like that just shows how little some people understand about maintenence and refits, and vessel availability. Look beyond the cheap headlines, and take some time to understand how we keep highly complex warships operational. If you wasn’t interested in defence, you wouldn’t be on this site, so know harm in learning something new. Please see Gunbusters and others comments for a more detailed explanation. 👍
Read the posts from people with some common sense and knowledge on the subject matter, and you will realise nothing is a disgrace, and war isn’t going to breakout overnight with China, Russia or Iran.
I’m sure the public would like to know which bureaucrat gave these defective engines the go ahead. They have made us a laughing stock again in the world, For the want of a decent horse shoe nail the war was lost, or words to that effect. Maybe they should use Calgon in every wash, it works on washing machines. I suppose in government terms 1 out of 6 ain’t bad.
Right…a bit long winded but hopefully this explains things to people who cannot grasp the consent of operational capability(OC)
If you have a defect on an RN vessel you raise an OPDEF signal. It details the defect down to component level , what you need to do to fix it, spares requirements, external support and the famous line 5, the effect the defect has on Operational Capability of the vessel. Note the word vessel… It doesn’t say system… Its says vessel.As she is also part of a task group, her task group job will also form part of this statement.
Diamond has a duff GT out of the two she has . Using her remaining engine She can move under her own power, power up her weapon systems and if needed, fight. However her OC is reduced because she has no redundancy left with regards to losing another engine.
Her next planned tasking was to transit the Suez followed by the BAM at the bottom of the Red Sea. How would it have looked if Diamond lost her second engine in the canal, lost all power and steering and blocked it? What about transiting the BAM and lost her remaining engine whilst being harrased by Huthi Rebels?
All the above would have been considered in the line 5 . We are not fighting a war but risks are coming up at Suez and the BAM. There is no need to take extra risks so she will get the engine fixed.
Does the RN need to deploy another T45?
No.
There is enough AAW cover in the CSG.
What if Diamonds issues are more severe?
Yes it can deploy another T45 to join if needed. But she is in maintenance at 48 hours notice.
Ships systems break. Its a fact of life. During a single year part of which will be say a six month plus deployment its pretty much standard to reach 100 OPDEF signals by June and be up over 200 by the end of the year.
The ships doesn’t sit alongside fixing tall of these defects unless it affects OC. It sails around doing its job with known limitations on what it can do. In Diamonds case its a big limitation so she is going alongside to fix it.
So some theoretical OC INSTANCES and their effects on a vessel and task group.
4.5 Gun has a broken loading arm… Alongside or fix at sea?Your OC means you cannot be tasked with NGS or provide Task Group Force Protection with MR Gunnery . You fix it at sea it doesn’t affect transiting the canal but it does put limits on what you could do in the BAM. However you have Phalanx, 30mm and close range weapons.
The Helo blows an engine. Loss of Anti Service Warfare, Force Protection, ASW Match, OHT, SAR,. Change the engine at sea no need to go alongside. Other units can cover for most of the above while you fix it.
Loss of a Freezer compressor. That is a big OC loss. It reduces your ability to remain at sea without replenishment. In a CSG its not an issue because you have a stores ship with you. Fix it at sea or if a singleton it means you need to go alongside more often to stock up.
In short you need to think loss of Operational Capability and the upcoming tasking when making decisions. In this case the RN has got it Bob on… Fix the engine, restore the loss in capability (which is redundancy) and then transit the canal and BAM and steam to catch up with the CSG.
Very well explained pal 👍
Cue silence from the trolls and naysayers desperate for any bad news to shout about from the rooftops.
And we have plenty of them on this site. Some have already forgot the 500M announced for T45 weapons upgrade, and the funding line for the remaining T26’s.
I suspect, reading their use of written English, that some may be foreigners fancying a spot of Brit bashing from the anonymity of their PC screens, or even bots designed to stir the hornets nest.
Interestingly, looking at the unrelated tweets which attacked our lads who missed their pens because of their colour, seems many cam from oversees accounts deleted within minutes. All deliberate.
Yes, it didn’t seem to be widely shared by our press that most of the tweets came from abroad. We do have racist problems. But overall, we are one of the most open, accepting and respectful of societies. But we are not allowed to say that.
Out of over 100 only 5 came from within the UK.
Is that so, didn’t know the exact figure.
After the hullabaloo I doubt that was welcome news, didn’t fit the “agenda “
Pretty much spot on mate, overseas accounts playing silly buggers. Goes to show the information war is 24/7!
Thanks GB hopefully it’ll save Mr Blays fingers from having to explain to 1/2 the commentators
😆 He does it much better than me anyway. I’ve forgotten most of what I learned in the RN. 😄
I no longer write OPDEFS thank god!
I just get paid to fix them.
You have encyclopedic knowledge! Good job you are still interested in sharing some of it on this site. God help us if you didn’t. Take care pal.
So bearing your excellent points in mind and recognising the increased maintenance burden of ever more sophisticated systems, it is not unreasonable to conclude that having just 6 AAW destroyers is cutting things fine.
Having 5 plus a spares package or 6 and no spares package which is what the RN finally had to agree to was always going to be an issue. Things like the recouperator core issues haven’t helped.
The RN has done wonders managing the limited numbers it has and prior to CSG 21. it spent years re jigging programs and plans to ensure that ships and maintenance was sorted out to ensure 2 plus 2 are going to be available for the carrier /Amphib groups.
Its not quite there yet but once PIP completes it should be.
For complex or simple systems maintenance is maintenance. You just get on and do it. For instance Sea Ceptor is far less maintenance intensive than Sea Wolf was.
Complex or new does not equate to more maintenance intensive.
With COTS based systems things are actually easier to maintain, repair and sustain as you are not struggling with only a few items of bespoke kit that is no longer supported by the manufacturer.
And once again GB shoots and scores, we have trolls down, trolls down, we’ve got trolls down in the website…..
The voice of reason, experience and above all, first hand knowledge. Cheers GB
Perhaps a more balanced view here rather than the handwringing that’s been going on.
https://thinpinstripedline.blogspot.com/2021/07/5-out-of-6-aint-bad-why-type-45.html
I do like Sir Humphrey… As a former Staff Officer he does explain stuff far more eloquently than I, as a bluff and gruff former WO can!
I like him too. He writes some excellent and balanced articles.
Personally I think it would be a very interesting ‘project’, to see how much bean counters and the procurement process for the Royal Navy warships, has cost the country. With ‘f’ up’s, overspends and cheaper equipment options, I’d personally hate to estimate the cost of these failures.
Unfortunately though, such an ‘exercise’ would not make a jot of difference to those involved in these processes.
Should have called the Type 45 the Unreliable Class. Yet another good reason to double the surface fleet.
Two active aircraft carriers and only one type 45 to support them? How can we have a continuous at sea carrier group if we can’t protect them? Yes, I know we will use other nations ships to support a carrier strike group but the state of readiness of type 45’s is a major concern.