British warship declared ready for combat

The Portsmouth-based Type 45 destroyer has passed a series of demanding trials and assessments, testing both its crew and its upgraded weapons and systems.

The upgrades included a three-month trial period around the UK to test its enhanced engines, which concluded last summer. As a result, HMS Dauntless is now fully prepared for deployment on global operations later this year.

During the testing phase off the South Coast, HMS Dauntless practised firing a range of weapons systems, from general-purpose and heavy machine guns to 30mm cannons. The 4.5-inch main gun and the Phalanx radar-controlled gun were also tested, showcasing their ability to fire 4,500 rounds per minute at incoming aircraft, missiles, or fast-attack craft.

In addition, the warship's air defense capabilities were assessed by tracking targets with a very low radar cross-section, simulating small incoming missiles. The multi-function radar and Long Range Radar, situated on the main and rear masts respectively, successfully demonstrated their ability to track targets at various altitudes and across waves, like sea-skimming missiles.

Δ

Δ

Excellent! Any schedule for the NSMs?

I read a report saying the RN wanted to fit them "at pace" to 3 ships within the next 12 months, but no details as to which ones.

HMS Somerset is the first to be confirmed with getting NSM and they have removed the Harpoon fittings on her already. There was an article about it published here back in January but I haven't heard anything more since.

The piece I read was published late last year.

Hi Sean,

That's right; the NSM announcement was made in November last year.

Thx. It would be interesting to know the roll out schedule for NSM. I think we are buying 11 systems and the first one ( per David's post below) seems to be going on Somerset. Isn't she an ASW frigate rather than GP?

Yes Somerset is ASW. As they are buying 11 sets, presumably they’re initially going to the 11 remaining Type 23s. Then as they’re decommissioned transferred to 6 Type 45's and the 5 Type 31s? It's possible some might end up on the T26's after the T23s, depending on how development of FC/ASW is going.

Seems like a lot of work to fit them and remove from all 11 T23. An idea would be to just fit them to the ships which have planned OSD beyond 2030 There are 5 of these: Somerset, Southerland, Kent, St Albans and Portland; and put the remainder directly on the T45s as they come in for refit. These are all ASW frigates and as the T26 enter service their NSMs become available for T31s.

Entirely plausible. I suspect the RN has a plan, but that they’ll be flexible with which ships actually get it depending on factors including • availability from manufacturer – the impression I get is the first sets might have been from existing stocks, possibly from an order for Norway • any delay to T31s and consequently any delays to retiring T23s • availability to fit to T45 given the other improvements and upgrades planned for them while having some available for deployment • any sudden need to maximise available ships As for the work to fit them, is it a… Read more »

Yeh, I’m sure the missile fitting will have to fit around the planned refit schedule and events. But its good to have a rough plan to start with. I’m not qualified to say about connection effort. I’m guessing that having identified the target (or someone having done that for you) you give the missile a way point and tell it what to start looking for when it gets there. Its probably got a Janes manual of silhouettes in its memory.

Plan is for 6 x T45s and 5 x T23s with those on the T23s cross-decking to the T31s as the T23s retire. The Type 26 will not get the NSM as they can fire the new Perseus AShM rom their Mk41 VLS. This is the plan as it stands today.

Agreed, significant progress, one of six of class retrofitted and ready for duty. Ships two and three (Daring and Dragon) in process, and scheduled for completion by end of CY (24?). Hopefully, the opposition will accommodate all NATO acquisition, maintenance and training shortfalls/requirements.🤞 Would be damnably ungentlemanly if they didn't…

As they say a friend in need is a friend indeed. And we have certainly asked a few favours over the last few years. We are turning a corner with the T45s. With new power trains, CAMM, NSM and Aster 30 Block 1, upgraded radar, this class will be a formidable warship.

Agreed, granted sufficient time to complete upgrades. Could additionally ultimately (re)aquire at least a rudimentary ASW capability.

So do we all! By the time T83 hits the water China will likely have a carrier fleet to rival the USN.

And the CAMM? Can't they do this sooner too? Still just 4*6? There's even room for a few more. I

I was going to ask if the 4.5" guns ever got ER-ER rounds for out to 25km+? If they’re going to be in service for another 10+ years it wouldn't be a waste.

Don't believe a rocket assisted shell was developed, only the base bleed. There's nothing stopping the gun from firing extended range ammunition like Leonardo's Vulcano, as the sabot could be scaled down from the 5″/127mm size. Except someone will have to put their hands in their pockets to make it happen. Similarly the USN have been looking at scaling up the MAD-FIRES guided round to fit in their 5″ systems.

Would RN expend strictly limited resources to upgrade munitions for legacy weapon system, short of actual conflict? 🤔. Open question…

It would depend on the requirement. As a weapon system the Mk8 4.5" gun is still a pretty good tool. It has a higher burst rate and sustained fire rate than the Mk45 5" system. From memory I believe the Mk8 fires a heavier HE shell with a higher explosive content than the Mk45. However unlike the Mk45 it doesn't have the massive customer base, so has not been properly funded and developed by BAe. Therefore no likelihood of a longer 62 calibre barrel like the Mk45 is getting or longer range shells. Another question worth asking, is will the… Read more »

I doubt it. The RNs specified the requirements of the T31 rather than what calibre guns were required and Babcock showed that the 57mm met those requirements. It's also the gun of choice of the USNs new Constellation class frigates, so they’ll be huge stocks of shells and various new shell types developed for it. I don't see NFGS happening in future. The entire raison d’etre of the Zumwalt class destroyers was NGFS and they were cancelled. If support is required by amphibious forces it’ll be provided from the air or land-attack missiles from ships. Navy's have far fewer ships… Read more »

The 57mm was original picked due to its lower price (cheaper than Leonardo's 76mm) and the mission set at the time ie facing off against pirates and use in the Gulf. The Navy wanted a dual use weapon for both surface and anti-air use. Both the 57 and 76 met those requirements, though the 57 was a lot cheaper. I’m positive that once the ships come into service. Their mission parameters will expand. This is already evident from the 1SL statement that the NSMs will be fitted from the T23s to the T31s. Which means the ship's will gain a… Read more »

My understanding was the 57mm won due to: • it's high rate of fire can deliver a greater weight of explosive onto a target than the 76mm • it's ability to act in CIWS role – and if the MAD-FIRES round works then using that would provide a defence against hypersonic missiles • both DSTL and Babcock used combat modelling tools, such as Bae's SADM, to evaluate the best combination of guns (57mm & 40mm) for the T31 https://www.navylookout.com/developing-the-type-31-frigate/ (I suspect commonality with the USN would play a factor if the result were revisited now. I think as a result… Read more »

57mm was choosen becasue it is BAE nothing else. It has nominal more rate of fire but not in reality because it is air cooled instead of water cooling of 76mm.

CAS in XXI century?! any aircraft/heli will be dead. Range is paramount either missiles or artillery rounds that is the reason that 5″ is a necessary gun also if it has guided anti air rounds to destroy long range firing drones.

Guess you didn't ready the Navy Lookup article as to why the 57mm was chosen. Given the T31 is built by Babcock, Bae's rival, I don't see why they would automatically choose a gun by them. It was Babcock's choice of weapon, the RN simply specified the requirements.

NGFS support in the 21st century? Any ship will be dead.

The US Joint Chiefs of Staff would disagree with you regarding CAS. https://irp.fas.org/doddir/dod/jp3_09_3.pdf

The 57's faster rate of fire can throw more shells at a target in a minute. But the effects are less than what a 76mm, 4.5 and 5" can do. This is purely down to the explosive content contained in the shell. The following is a rough guide on the explosive content of a standard HE shell. The content weight will vary depending on the manufacturer: Standard 40mm HE shell contains around 0.115kg of explosive. Standard 57mm HE shell contains around 0.42kg of explosive. Standard 76mm HE shell contains around 0.76kg of explosive Standard 4.5" HE shell contains around 3kg… Read more »

For air defence the higher rate of fire, higher elevation, and train speed gives the 57mm a distinct advantage over the 5".

Not sure why I have to post this again, but this article details the how and why the 57mm/ 40mm gun combination was chosen. https://www.navylookout.com/developing-the-type-31-frigate/

57mm can't fire 220 rounds in a minute. It is an extrapolation of rounds per second.

Understood, interesting rationale presented. Sean provided the countervailing argument below. Time will tell how the blokes at the Admiralty view the issue.

Thanks DB, seems an opportunity to extend the guns range is not even getting a look in. Still 14 +/- in RN service for another 10 years. If I can misquote "range does matter"! Maybe too costly and not a priority. I saw somewhere that BAE is developing a glide 155mm round for over 100km. That might make the rail gun at 100km range unnecessary if the actual speed of shell isn't important.

Hi Quentin, best have a check of the Nammo website. They’ve developed a 155mm shell that go well over 150km. It kind of depends if it's fired from a 39 calibre barrel or 52. It can do this because the body of the shell is hollow and becomes a ramjet during flight. However, to make space for the ramjet and fuel, the explosive content is significantly reduced. Is this better than the BAe glide shell? Yes and no. Its main advantage over the glide shell is the reduced time of flight to the target. Which for time sensitive missions could… Read more »

Thanks again for your good research and information. It all looks possible doesn't it? 100-150km+ is pretty decent for gun fired projectiles. We all hope the 5" gun coming into service with the RN gets fully utilised and the Mk41s too! Lots to fill!

No not ER rounds for 114mm neither will get it since they are now legacy guns. I doubt that even ammunition can be build today.

Global suggests that she can visit any sea regardless of temperature😀

The benefit of centuries worth of maritime experience…….😕

Don't see the purpose of a 4.5" pea shooter gun with all the modern missile systems available for defence and attack , a gun seems pointless and a waste of deck space and money .

NGS Naval gun fire support is one reason why the Navy still mounts a MK 8 its good for soften up targets prior too a beach assault John

A gun provides lots of options in a scaled response to a threat. Warning shots- gun has that covered, illumination rounds- ditto gun has it covered, smoke rounds- gun. Armour piercing- gun, fragmentation- gun, airburst- gun- a missile system isn't so adaptable.

NGS was used periodically to good effect in the Falklands conflict to support ground troops.

Type 45 designed for use as an anti aircraft , anti missile and anti submarine roll which should not require an NGS, just seems like tradition to have one, and for sure there will never be another Falkland conflict like the last disaster.

Yes why would you risk a destroyer to shell a beach when a frigate would be better for such a job. If anything they should remove the 4.5 and install a 57mm as per the T31 this would give better anti-air capability more suited for her role.

Mk 8 4.5 when in surface mode where used not just for NGS in the Falklands but also too put up a wall of HE after 1 Rd of RE I or j against AM 39 exocet

Major Falkland's war lesson learnt from the Batch 1 missile only armed type 22's. Hence the incorporation of a gun on the Batch 3 Type 22's (and every class since).

Not as big a calibre as guns of old, but way more accurate and whichever way you cut it, a 4.5″ round incoming is going to spoil your day

The most recent live fire of the Mk8 against enemy targets was during the operations in Libya (2011). Used to take out artillery and a shore based missile battery that had fired on the ship which I believe was HMS Liverpool. Though I believe that a T23 a few years back, did fire warning shots towards the Iranian Republican Guards who were looking to board a UK flagged tanker. The main gun still has its uses, its rounds are cheap and plentiful. The issue the 4.5″ Mk8 has had is that there was no money spent on ammunition development. Which… Read more »

Well BAE bought the Bofors and also the US naval gun industry with more than a hundred in service so their 4.5″ does not make sense even in BAE logic.

They thought that pre Falklands too when the Batch 1 and Batch 2 Type 22s had no main gun in the design, and some of the Leanders too.

Was fortunately corrected with the T22 B3s and after.

Not at all. Shells are far cheaper than misiles & you often need something smaller than a 500lb warhead missile. They’re more versatile in many roles including anti-ship, NGS, AA, policing("Put a shot across their bows number 1″). Nobody would call a 4.5" a pea shooter. If your missile systems are put out of acion, or run out of missiles, the gun is a vital back-up.

That's a 40kg pea… Lol 😁

4.5″ shell weighs 56lb + cordite 28lb fixed ammunition 84lbs big Peas

My semi-educated guess of 40kg was pretty accurate then! A Big pea indeed!

Quentin,Although the Turret and ammunition carasel are automatic whacking what is called Tanked ammunition round on your shoulder for things like Emergency resupply was a nightmare where as with the old twin Mk 6 Round and Cordite were separate quentin each turret had 6 personnel gunbay had between 4 to 8 personnel Mk 8 just had 4 in the gunbay 2 in the turret control room

Look at what systems the Soviets had in the 1960s with regards to ASM. Some such as AS4 Kitchen are still in use today. Mk 8 had an anti air capability with the shells it used. Each shell can be fused DA ( Direct Action – It hits something and goes bang) Low or High for the radar proximity fuse. The fuse setting is done by whats known as fuse wiping gear which sets the fuse as the shell is moved by the loading arm from the hoist to the gun immediately prior to ramming. With the advent of GSA8… Read more »

Gubbusterc,quite correct on most the feed ring or carousel when feed with HE rds there was always 2 empty spaces 180% opposite the gunbay feed rammer the Round rammer had two manual levers Lefthand lever took HE right hand lever took either RE I or RE J which were Chaff rds and Para illum Starshell those shells would go then be rammed into the Carousel into either of the 2 empty spaces

And not forgetting that as you auto load rounds onto the feed ring from the Gunbay it ignores any gaps and keeps indexing until a round gets to the hoist. Its so much more reliable with the MoD 1 reed switches that replaced the god awful microswitches on the Mod0 gun.

👍 had the misfortune of once having too manually unload from the breech when One Muppet sent a HE Rd up instead of an RE I Rd that was during Corporate alot of people's hair went grey pretty quickly

I would have thought they would have tested the new engine set up in warm waters to prove their capability to operate worldwide, not like the previous failed set up

I would think the engineering teams have built in more heat and humidity persistence than T45 will ever need now. As often said, this issue was caused by government furnished equipment. Back when the T45 design was finalised, it was thought that T45 would spend it's career pootling around the Atlantic, with the odd club med cruise. East of Suez was probably thought unlikely, or maybe once a decade event. So a graceful decline ( great PR company tag line there) in performance was probably thought acceptable for the med in summer, when it was never more than a day… Read more »

Interesting article to spend time reading https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_45_destroyer

CSG23 is likely going to the Eastern Mediterranean,HMS Dauntless will get plenty of time proving PIP works in warmer waters.

Off topic. US and Israel already doing it…

This is an example of what CAMM could surely be off the back of a truck! Think a bigger box!

That's a 5×4 = 20 load that could all probably go in 20/40’ container too!

So how many of the t45s are actually active? (This is a circus) And will the be fitted with ABMs? (More dick time) How many t23s are actually active? (They seem to be the only reliable assets the RN have) How many F35s do we have now? (Are our aircraft carriers going to spend half their life's in dock no aircraft) The RN is a laughing stock…

It's not thRN that’ a laughing stock it’ the MOD who keep interfering with no practical knowledge of what sea-life is like (unless they holiday in Florisa)

Active? Do you mean at sea? In Maintenance? In dry dock? The RN doesnt use that metric. Operational Capability is the descriptor that the RN uses. Every vessels material and manpower state is held by Fleet HQ. This info details gaps in crew specialisations and training, individual and system equipment defects, stores order deliveries, fuel states, etc.They know from that info what tasks certain vessels can do and what vessels they can send on a task. Just because a vessel is alongside doing maintenance does not mean it cannot do certain tasking as the Notice for Sea( How long it… Read more »

It would help the credibility of organisations such as "ukdj" that when reporting on significant events such as this, could possibly do so without lapsing into American style spelling. Especially when they manage to Americanise a word that is so central to their raison d’etre that it is the third work of their organisations’ name. Please it is DEFENCE not DEFENSE (see first line of ultimate paragraph).

Great we’re dealing with the PIP, but by the end of this year we’re down to 16 escorts until T26 & 31s begin entering service. Of those only half can do top level ASW & not all have AShMs fitted.