Type 45 Destroyer (Daring Class) (RN) [News Only]

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
User avatar
Gabriele
Senior Member
Posts: 1998
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:53
Contact:
Italy

Re: Type 45 Destroyer (Daring Class) (RN) [News Only]

Post by Gabriele »

Repainting the hull just before cutting three massive holes in it to push in new diesels must feel quite... weird.
You might also know me as Liger30, from that great forum than MP.net was.

Arma Pacis Fulcra.
Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum

Caribbean
Senior Member
Posts: 2784
Joined: 09 Jan 2016, 19:08
United Kingdom

Re: Type 45 Destroyer (Daring Class) (RN) [News Only]

Post by Caribbean »

Jensy wrote:Don't suppose there would be any chance of recycling the old ones on Type 31, seeing as the original IH design was built around it?
If not in Batch 1, then maybe in an AAW-focussed Batch 2? A tier 2 destroyer with better capabilities than many navy's Tier 1 might quite useful until the T4x comes to fruition
Jensy wrote:Does that suggest the Smart-L/S1850M radar is getting replaced or upgraded to the latest MK2 version? Seems pretty big news if so.
Very big news - it would imply that not only BMD is being taken seriously, but that action is being taken to counter Russian EW capabilities
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Type 45 Destroyer (Daring Class) (RN) [News Only]

Post by Ron5 »

I'm a lot more interested in the Sampson upgrades. I wonder what they will deliver.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Type 45 Destroyer (Daring Class) (RN) [News Only]

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Caribbean wrote:A tier 2 destroyer with better capabilities than many navy's Tier 1 might quite useful until the T4x comes to fruition
I take it the above was meant as a joke, but that is exactly how it will play out in Oz
- the Hunters will get a more capable AEGIS baseline than the dedicated AAWs... which will then follow,later, with the same upgrades

One does need to have some ships "in the line" too; just in defence of the Australian thinking
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

User avatar
RichardIC
Senior Member
Posts: 1371
Joined: 10 May 2015, 16:59
United Kingdom

Re: Type 45 Destroyer (Daring Class) (RN) [News Only]

Post by RichardIC »

I need to know more about the deep fat fryers.

User avatar
SKB
Senior Member
Posts: 7931
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:35
England

Re: Type 45 Destroyer (Daring Class) (RN) [News Only]

Post by SKB »

HMS Dauntless arrives at Cammell Laird
Image
Image
Image
Image
(@HMSDauntless) 6th May 2020
Yesterday, we arrived in Cammell Laird as the first T45 to go through the Power Improvement Project (PIP) where our 2 Diesel Generators will be removed & replaced with 3 more powerful ones. Over the next weeks we'll share more info about PIP & what it means for us and the RoyalNavy

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Type 45 Destroyer (Daring Class) (RN) [News Only]

Post by Ron5 »

RichardIC wrote:I need to know more about the deep fat fryers.
Popular in Scotland I am told.

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Type 45 Destroyer (Daring Class) (RN) [News Only]

Post by Ron5 »

SKB wrote:

Mmmmm I don't think so.

andrew98
Member
Posts: 197
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:28
United Kingdom

Re: Type 45 Destroyer (Daring Class) (RN) [News Only]

Post by andrew98 »

Anyone know anything about what the info-graphic says about the latest radars being installed?

RetroSicotte
Retired Site Admin
Posts: 2657
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
United Kingdom

Re: Type 45 Destroyer (Daring Class) (RN) [News Only]

Post by RetroSicotte »

It sounds a lot like marketing blab for just general line software upkeep and refactoring.

Would be delighted to be wrong.

Timmymagic
Donator
Posts: 3224
Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
United Kingdom

Re: Type 45 Destroyer (Daring Class) (RN) [News Only]

Post by Timmymagic »

RetroSicotte wrote:It sounds a lot like marketing blab for just general line software upkeep and refactoring.
They'd have been a BAE announcement of a big contract if there had been a big upgrade programme. This can only be software and removal of obsolescent components.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Type 45 Destroyer (Daring Class) (RN) [News Only]

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Timmymagic wrote:announcement of a big contract if there had been a big upgrade programme
Well the pessimistic interpretation is more likely, but on the other hand a lot of the stuff gets paid for over a decade or so, e.g. as the SMART-L and its sister, the S1850M Long Range Radar are used by the navies from Denmark, France, Germany, Great Britain, Italy and South Korea, these radars could in principle profit from the modification package contracted by the Netherlands' Defence Materiel Organisation.
- they've been paying for the features ever since that contract having been signed in 2012!
- not sure if the others (Denmark, perhaps UK too) would contribute along the way or just if and when they want the upgrade?
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

NickC
Donator
Posts: 1432
Joined: 01 Sep 2017, 14:20
United Kingdom

Re: Type 45 Destroyer (Daring Class) (RN) [News Only]

Post by NickC »

Very disappointing but not unexpected to report over the 5 years, 2015 to 2019, T45 class of six destroyers spent 2,417 days at sea, an average of 81 days per ship per year, would not be surprised if RN with the T45 had created new record low of all the world's navies for modern destroyer classes.

Parliamentary answer 2nd June to question from Kevan Jones Labour, North Durham (via uk defence journal)

From <https://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?i ... #g49605.q0>

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

User avatar
SKB
Senior Member
Posts: 7931
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:35
England

Re: Type 45 Destroyer (Daring Class) (RN) [News Only]

Post by SKB »

ImageImage
Image

User avatar
SKB
Senior Member
Posts: 7931
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:35
England

Re: Type 45 Destroyer (Daring Class) (RN) [News Only]

Post by SKB »


User avatar
SKB
Senior Member
Posts: 7931
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:35
England

Re: Type 45 Destroyer (Daring Class) (RN) [News Only]

Post by SKB »


Image
Image
Image
Image

14 Dock (220m long x 36.5m wide x 13m deep) is the third largest drydock in Portsmouth after D Lock and C Lock (both: 259m long x 36.2m wide x 16.9m deep)

User avatar
SKB
Senior Member
Posts: 7931
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:35
England

Re: Type 45 Destroyer (Daring Class) (RN) [News Only]

Post by SKB »

HMS Dauntless at Cammel Laird


Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Type 45 Destroyer (Daring Class) (RN) [News Only]

Post by Lord Jim »

Can someone remind me how long it will take for each T-45 to go through this process?

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Type 45 Destroyer (Daring Class) (RN) [News Only]

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Lord Jim wrote:Can someone remind me how long it will take for each T-45 to go through this process?
As per my posts on TD
- the problem was brought up by NAO in 2007 (report that is; they normally run a year behind). NAO reports came to their [sad] end when they (next) pointed out that Tornados could not fly Allied missions as fitting the friend-or-foe system required by the USAF for their BVR tactics (300 km, not that the missiles would go that far out, but factor in Mach 1 or 2 , and...)

The MoD did take their time with asking the Parliament for the money (because they asked the suppliers first, but because there had been a ministerial intervention with the original "design" 8-) decision... they got nowhere. All BAE lobbyists were v happy; was the Prime, though this was all about the RR part of the contract).

There's been a delay with the first one (as we all know), and:
ALL that the MoD is letting out is that
- by the middle of this decade we will have all the six fully operational (as they should have been from the beginning).
- And that middle of the 20s is only a decade away from when their replacements will become 'topical' -ref. the NSS (not the National Security Strategy)
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Type 45 Destroyer (Daring Class) (RN) [News Only]

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

A bit more on NAO reports (wrong thread, but just to finish the thought):

The T-45 problem was discovered during the trials and was brought up by NAO in 2007 (report that is; they normally run a year behind).
- NAO reports came to their [sad] end when they (next) pointed out that Tornados could not fly Allied missions as it was found out that fitting the friend-or-foe system required by the USAF for their BVR tactics (300 km, not that the missiles would go that far out, but factor in Mach 1 or 2 , and...) could not be done. The very informative spreadsheets were just copy-pasted to the end of NAO reports... because the accountants could not tell the heads from tails in them. And no single person in the MoD (how many people do they have?) could be tasked to vet the information for non-sensitivity. Because they are all in departmental silos :problem: .
- there we go: now even the folks who could make sense of those, err, facts, do not get to see them :(
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

jonas
Senior Member
Posts: 1110
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 19:20
United Kingdom

Re: Type 45 Destroyer (Daring Class) (RN) [News Only]

Post by jonas »

Parliamentary written answers 6th July :-

Asked by Dr Julian Lewis
(New Forest East)
[N]
Asked on: 30 June 2020
Ministry of Defence
Type 45 Destroyers: Repairs and Maintenance
66798
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, with reference to the engine modification programme for the six Type-45 destroyers, if he will publish for each destroyer the (a) nature of the original engine design fault; (b) proposed remedy; (c) estimated sea-time lost annually; (d) scheduled completion date for each upgraded vessel; (e) estimate of the additional cost of the upgrade and (f) recovery of the additional cost of making the ships seaworthy to be borne by (i) the engine designer, (ii) defence manufacturers and (iii) the public purse; and if he will make a statement.
A
Answered by: Jeremy Quin
Answered on: 06 July 2020

In 2011, an independent study commissioned by the Ministry of Defence (MOD) reported there was "no single root cause underlying the low reliability" experienced in the Type 45 Destroyers but a "large group of unconnected individual causes". It nevertheless concluded that Integrated Full Electric Propulsion remained a sound choice for the Type 45 Class. The nature of the interrelated defects associated with the fully integrated propulsion system masked the true extent of the inherent design shortcomings.

Subsequent experience gained by deploying the ships to the most demanding operational environments revealed that the original design intent of operating the ship whilst running the WR21 gas turbine alone was flawed. The system in this mode was still not capable of delivering the desired level of reliability and the power generated by the ships' diesels meant that they could not provide the resilience required. Only the installation of additional diesel generators would allow these shortfalls to be addressed.

For further details of the technical issues with the Type 45 Power and Propulsion System I would refer the rt. hon. Member to the Independent Power and Propulsion System Performance Review, dated March 2011, a copy of which, redacted in accordance with the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act 2000, was placed in the Library of the House on 13 May 2016.

In 2014, Project Napier was established with two core strands. First, the Equipment Improvement Plan (EIP) which has built on the work to enhance system reliability and to meet the original design intent in the near term. This work has delivered positive results with increases to availability across the fleet. In the longer term, the Power Improvement Plan (PIP) will improve system resilience by adding upgraded diesel generators to provide the electrical generation capacity required to meet many propulsion and power requirements without reliance on WR21 gas turbine.

All Type 45 Destroyers will receive new diesel generators under the £160 million PIP conversion programme. Work is currently underway on HMS DAUNTLESS, the first ship to enter the programme, and she will return to sea for trials in 2021. Following completion of these sea trials, she will re-join the fleet. It is planned that all six Type 45 ships will have received the upgrade by the mid-2020s.

The programme is dependent on the availability of ships to undertake the upgrade, balanced against the Royal Navy's current and future operational commitments. PIP conversions will be planned to take into account the regular Upkeep cycle to maximise the overall class availability. The first of class embodiment is expected to take 13 months from docking to enable a comprehensive suite of sea trials to prove the capability.

The issue of liability stems from decisions taken early in the programme. This includes the main investment decision by the MOD in July 2000 to proceed with a Type 45 design based on an Integrated Full Electric Propulsion solution and subsequent selection of the WR21 gas turbine. As the issues now being addressed result from those earlier decisions, it is appropriate that liability for funding this work now rests with the MOD. A number of early modifications were implemented under the Type 45 Destroyer Contract for Availability arrangement with BAE Systems at no additional cost to the MOD.

The Type 45 Destroyers are hugely capable ships and have been deployed successfully on a range of operations world-wide and they continue to make an enormous contribution to the defence of the UK and our international partners.

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Type 45 Destroyer (Daring Class) (RN) [News Only]

Post by Ron5 »

One Geo Hoon carries most of the blame. Of course he has been amply rewarded by a lucrative post political career.

User avatar
SKB
Senior Member
Posts: 7931
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:35
England

Re: Type 45 Destroyer (Daring Class) (RN) [News Only]

Post by SKB »

Image

(Warship TV) 7th July 2020

User avatar
SKB
Senior Member
Posts: 7931
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:35
England

Re: Type 45 Destroyer (Daring Class) (RN) [News Only]

Post by SKB »


Image

User avatar
SKB
Senior Member
Posts: 7931
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:35
England

Re: Type 45 Destroyer (Daring Class) (RN) [News Only]

Post by SKB »

Image
(@NavyLookout) 13th July 2020
HMS Daring (left) and HMS Duncan (right) in refit at Number 14 and 15 docks respectively in Portsmouth.
Duncan due out of the dock (temporarily) tomorrow (14th July) to allow completion of the new gantry crane that will service both docks.
Photo: S. Wenham

Post Reply