An uncritical, unquestioning, and therefore irrational "psychological bond", sufficient for the victims to resort to redefining long understood meanings of certain simple words in the English language; and, to resort to the use insults in an attempt to nullify the arguments of, and denigrate those that descent :) !!

A more accurate description might be that people using certain simple words may in fact be mistaken because they picked up those certain simple words from reports in the press, which may not reflect the actualite. Those people sometimes chafe when corrected and mistake correction for insult.

However, they do themselves no favours when in an attempt to score points, they are unable to spell simple words (also well understood), like "dissent". Which is of course very different from "descent", which usually describes loss of height.......
 
A more accurate description might be that people using certain simple words may in fact be mistaken because they picked up those certain simple words from reports in the press, which may not reflect the actualite. Those people sometimes chafe when corrected and mistake correction for insult.

However, they do themselves no favours when in an attempt to score points, they are unable to spell simple words (also well understood), like "dissent". Which is of course very different from "descent", which usually describes loss of height.......
Yes . . . all very good points, well made, speeling mistake corrected . . . but, none of which alter that fact that only ONE x Type 45, is - today - capable of doing what it is supposed to be doing :( .
 

bob231

War Hero
Yes . . . all very good points, well made, speeling mistake corrected . . . but, none of which alter that fact that only ONE x Type 45, is - today - capable of doing what it is supposed to be doing :( .
Presumably those Type 45s that are programmed to be alongside for a maintenance period... and which I believe _are_ alongside for a maintenance period... do not come into your equation?
 
but, none of which alter that fact that only ONE x Type 45, is - today - capable of doing what it is supposed to be doing
Except the minor fact that if DMND was needed - she could be underway and capable of tasking today. She would be taking some risk on future availability, but perfectly capable of doing so - today. Hence the point about not being "broken".

Similarly, DRGN could be out of FTSP in a matter of days if need be. That she isn't reflects how worried the RN are about the situation.
 
A more accurate description might be that people using certain simple words may in fact be mistaken because they picked up those certain simple words from reports in the press, which may not reflect the actualite. Those people sometimes chafe when corrected and mistake correction for insult.

However, they do themselves no favours when in an attempt to score points, they are unable to spell simple words (also well understood), like "dissent". Which is of course very different from "descent", which usually describes loss of height.......

Would I be thinking this is another instance where the terms Available - unavailible - scheduled and unservicable have confused a journo and thus we have an outrage story that 5 ships are broke and only 1 at sea - whereas in reality 1 is broke 1 is in overhaull 1 is at sea and the other 3 are alongside for light mazintenance and crew leave and thus not broken.
 
Would I be thinking this is another instance where the terms Available - unavailible - scheduled and unservicable have confused a journo and thus we have an outrage story that 5 ships are broke and only 1 at sea - whereas in reality 1 is broke 1 is in overhaull 1 is at sea and the other 3 are alongside for light mazintenance and crew leave and thus not broken.

Do you know which ship/s are in which state?
 
All I read it as, is that 4 were scheduled to be tied up or dry docked. Should the shit hit the fan a couple of those tied up, could be tasked fairly quickly for operations.

2 were tasked for operations with Queen Elizabeth of which one has had to stay behind in a friendly port in the Mediterranean to have a part of the ship fixed before resuming it's tasking.

Mountain out of a molehill
 
In the context of this discussion, yes. The current status of the Daring class doesn't seem to be a state secret.
This all just started because of a report in the press, last week.
 

bob231

War Hero
In the context of this discussion, yes. The current status of the Daring class doesn't seem to be a state secret.
I rather like being employed, so won't publicly advertise the RN's current state of readiness.

The only one that is a/s in an unplanned fashion, though, is DMND, and even that is a conscious decision to take the Ship off task. Has the Ship suffered so catastrophic a failure that she was unable to remain at sea, I suspect the press might have been rather more interested... salvage operations involving HM Ships are fairly uncommon, after all.

You can keep a Ship at sea - and take it to war - with significant defects. These may not significantly affect your ability to kill the Queen's enemies. However, that does not necessarily mean that you want to stay at sea for peacetime ups.
 
Last edited:
I rather like being employed, so won't publicly advertise the RN's current state of readiness.

The only one that is a/s in an unplanned fashion, though, is DMND, and even that is a conscious decision to take the Ship off task. Has the Ship suffered so catastrophic a failure that she was unable to remain at sea, I suspect the press might have been rather more interested... salvage operations involving HM Ships are fairly uncommon, after all.

You can keep a Ship at sea - and take it to war - with significant defects. These may not significantly affect your ability to kill the Queen's enemies. However, that does not necessarily mean that you want to stay at sea for peacetime ups.

No one asked you to.

So as said, just one operational.

Really? What do you class as a "significant defect". Having served on a couple of ships that suffered significant defects, they did indeed prevent us from killing or even threatening the Queen's enemies. Propulsion, not being able to go anywhere = significant. Weapons, not being able to use your primary weapons system = significant.
 

bob231

War Hero
Equally, I've spent a month at sea for KIPION negative an engine (and longer with our Emergency Generator being decorational). We were needed there, changing it in theatre added too much programme risk, we could manage without it. Life would have been more interesting - much more interesting - had it come to a shooting war, but we would still have been there and still had a full suite of weapons and ability to use them.

For general consideration, here are some defects that would typically result in going alongside immediately / exceptionally and changing your normal programme:
- For most ships, loss of functionality of an engine (less so Type 23s given number of engines and how it affects the Ship).
- Loss of a navigation radar (because you only typically have two and remaining at sea without them is considered excessively brave)
- Loss of the Emergench Generator (unless Type 23... this relates to MOD Safety Case more than anything else)
- Loss of redundancy of Ship's navigational systems, depending on nature of the defect.
- Loss (or significant degradation) of weapons important to Ship's programme / theatre of operations. This includes most failure modes for the embarked aircraft.
- Loss or incapacity of key personnel, depending on position, Ship's location and whether reliefs can be provided by helicopter (this is typically because a watchbill becomes unsustainable, but the RN obliges itself to have a Charge qualified engineer appropriate to the Ship at all times and a doctor if operating beyond reach of the UK).
- Loss of redundancy of steering motors.
- Loss of ability to process oily water (after a certain number of days... because ditching oily waste to sea is now verboten and storage capacity is finite).

It is very much a case of managing risk. In peacetime this is risk to life - hence navy radars and aids featuring - but the appetite for risk on operations can vary significantly. Not having the 4.5" is very concerning in the vicinity of Iran, fairly irrelevant when you're smashing around in the North Atlantic harassing submarines and it's broken because it's gone underwater a few too many times.

It's also probably worth noting there will inevitably be certain bits of a Ship that aren't working or aren't working properly at any given time, some of which can be repaired at sea, some of which can't.

ETA: the Operational Planners will probably be a bit embarrassed ATM, since a conscious decision will have been made to schedule the other two Type 45 "runners" for maintenance together over summer holidays, and then DMND up and breaks on them. This is to give Ship's Company a chance to see families and especially children over the holidays, noting a typical Fleet Time Support Period is six weeks long.
 

Fang_Farrier

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
Equally, I've spent a month at sea for KIPION negative an engine (and longer with our Emergency Generator being decorational). We were needed there, changing it in theatre added too much programme risk, we could manage without it. Life would have been more interesting - much more interesting - had it come to a shooting war, but we would still have been there and still had a full suite of weapons and ability to use them.

For general consideration, here are some defects that would typically result in going alongside immediately / exceptionally and changing your normal programme:
- For most ships, loss of functionality of an engine (less so Type 23s given number of engines and how it affects the Ship).
- Loss of a navigation radar (because you only typically have two and remaining at sea without them is considered excessively brave)
- Loss of the Emergench Generator (unless Type 23... this relates to MOD Safety Case more than anything else)
- Loss of redundancy of Ship's navigational systems, depending on nature of the defect.
- Loss (or significant degradation) of weapons important to Ship's programme / theatre of operations. This includes most failure modes for the embarked aircraft.
- Loss or incapacity of key personnel, depending on position, Ship's location and whether reliefs can be provided by helicopter (this is typically because a watchbill becomes unsustainable, but the RN obliges itself to have a Charge qualified engineer appropriate to the Ship at all times and a doctor if operating beyond reach of the UK).
- Loss of redundancy of steering motors.
- Loss of ability to process oily water (after a certain number of days... because ditching oily waste to sea is now verboten and storage capacity is finite).

It is very much a case of managing risk. In peacetime this is risk to life - hence navy radars and aids featuring - but the appetite for risk on operations can vary significantly. Not having the 4.5" is very concerning in the vicinity of Iran, fairly irrelevant when you're smashing around in the North Atlantic harassing submarines and it's broken because it's gone underwater a few too many times.

It's also probably worth noting there will inevitably be certain bits of a Ship that aren't working or aren't working properly at any given time, some of which can be repaired at sea, some of which can't.

ETA: the Operational Planners will probably be a bit embarrassed ATM, since a conscious decision will have been made to schedule the other two Type 45 "runners" for maintenance together over summer holidays, and then DMND up and breaks on them. This is to give Ship's Company a chance to see families and especially children over the holidays, noting a typical Fleet Time Support Period is six weeks long.

You forgot to include the ice cream machine.
Vital in warmer climes.
 

bob231

War Hero
You forgot to include the ice cream machine.
Vital in warmer climes.
IDK, only been to sea "fitted for, but not with".

Really? What do you class as a "significant defect". Having served on a couple of ships that suffered significant defects, they did indeed prevent us from killing or even threatening the Queen's enemies. Propulsion, not being able to go anywhere = significant. Weapons, not being able to use your primary weapons system = significant.
To give a couple of examples:
- You could go to war with no navigation equipment working beyond one gyro. The Bridge would hate it, you'd be limited in role, but that doesn't stop you being an effective escort for a capital ship.
- A propulsion defect doesn't necessarily mean loss of propulsion. Sprint engines may be immaterial for ASW, equally cruising engines are less dramatic if you're going to spend lots of time sprinting around dodging air attack.
- Anything involving environmental preservation!
 
Do you know which ship/s are in which state?
I rather like being employed, so won't publicly advertise the RN's current state of readiness . . .

Published (last week) by: Alex Walters, FORCES NET, on 21 July 2021.

Royal Navy's Type 45s: Only One Of Six Destroyers Operationally Available

The Royal Navy's Type 45s are anti-air and anti-missile combat specialist vessels.

A defence minister has revealed that just one out of the Royal Navy's six Type 45 destroyers is operationally available, with the rest either undergoing maintenance or being fixed.

Royal Navy warship HMS Defender is, at the moment, the only Type 45 on operations.

The warship, currently deployed as part of the Carrier Strike Group (CSG21), was shadowed by Russian vessels and buzzed by jets last month as she sailed through the disputed waters around Crimea.

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.

While HMS Dauntless, the first of the Type 45 destroyers to undergo a Power Improvement Project (PIP) 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.

Commons Defence Committee chairman Tobias Ellwood suggested the situation was "operationally unacceptable".

Defence Procurement Minister Jeremy Quin told MPs on the committee: "We have two Type 45s embarked with the CSG, Diamond has got current issues but I hope they will be able to be rectified shortly."

Type 45 destroyer HMS Diamond DATE UNKNOWN DATE UPLOADED 060721 CREDIT MOD.jpg
Type 45 destroyer HMS Diamond at sea (Picture: MOD).

Mr Ellwood said: "HMS Defender is now our only current operational Type 45.

"If that ship experiences propulsion problems as we have seen across the Type 45 family, then our carrier group would have to be forced to lean on a NATO ally to ensure that we have destroyer protection.

"That really indicates – bottom line – we need a bigger Navy."


What are the Royal Navy's Type 45 destroyers . . . ?

The Type 45 destroyers are among the most advanced in the Royal Navy fleet, capable of carrying out a range of operations, including defence from air attack, counter-piracy and humanitarian aid.

With huge potential in both combat and non-combat roles, the vessels are already a distinguishable symbol of UK strength as Britain strives toward a more global presence.

Equipped with the Sea Viper missile system, capable of hitting airborne, moving targets from 70 miles away, the vessels will form an important component within the UK Carrier Strike Groups of the future.

Earlier this month, it was announced the vessels will receive a £500m upgrade to their firepower capability which will see the warships' missile capacity increased by 50%.

NOTE: Follow link for videos that move !!

 
Top