Today the Times correctly reported that HMS Diamond has had to abort her Gulf deployment and return to home for repairs. The defect concerns the propellor but is not directly related to the engine issues that have been the primary cause of Type 45 destroyer woes. Unfortunately, the problem cannot be rectified by dry docking in Bahrain or Gibraltar and requires the attention of specialists in Portsmouth.
In recent years the RN has maintained single frigate or destroyer East of Suez on Operation Kipion. Patrolling the Gulf and the Indian Ocean on maritime security operations is an important priority for the RN and Diamonds departure will mean there is now no major RN warship in the region for the first time in since the Armilla Patrol was established in the early 1980s. This defect once again exposes how over-stretched the RN surface fleet has become as there are no replacements close to hand. While HMS Diamond’s ships company can enjoy Christmas at home, another ship is likely to have a radical change of program, Kipion is a priority tasking for the RN.
The only RN warship currently in the Mediterranean is HMS Ocean on her last major deployment as flagship for NATO Standing Maritime Group 2. HMS Diamond had already deputised for HMS Ocean in this role during September while Ocean made a dash across the Atlantic to support hurricane relief work in the Caribbean. At the end of October, HMS Ocean returned to the Mediterranean and HMS Diamond formally handed over to her at Souda Bay in Crete. She then sailed for the Gulf to relieve HMS Monmouth.
The Times states “Admiral Sir Philip Jones, head of the navy, is under pressure to demonstrate that the Type 45s work despite long-running problems with the engine in warm water”. The First Sea Lord cannot be blamed for the propulsion problems of the Type 45s, the roots of the issue go back several decades (explained in detail here). In this specific case, it is the Ministry of Defence (DE&S) and their BAE Systems contractors in Portsmouth who are responsible for the state of HMS Diamond’s propellors, not navy command. The over-stretched surface fleet is the fault of politicians of all parties who have repeatedly cut the navy and even now are contemplating further cuts.
It should be noted that despite the backdrop of manpower shortages, not enough ships and further possible cuts, on 22nd November 2017 the RN still managed to have 32 ships and submarines either overseas or on operations (including RFAs but not including P2000 boats) and around 8,000 people actively deployed. The beleaguered First Sea Lord can claim with some credibility that, in proportion to its size, the RN is the busiest navy in the world. (The majority of these vessels are deployed in European or northern waters).
Overall the Type 45 fleet spends far too much time alongside in Portsmouth. The £280 million Power Improvement Package (PIP), which should provide a permanent cure for the engine troubles, promised in the 2015 SDSR will not begin until 2019. This delay is unacceptable and should be brought forward as a matter of urgency, beginning with HMS Dauntless. Despite the propulsion troubles, it should be remembered the Type 45s have successfully deployed in the heat of the Gulf and elsewhere by using temporary engine fixes and some operating restrictions developed under the Equipment Improvement Plan (EIP).
Type 45s – snapshot
- HMS Daring – in long-term lay-up as harbour training ship (due to manpower shortages) since returning from successful 9-month Gulf deployment in May 2017.
- HMS Dauntless – due to begin major refit, having been laid up since 2015.
- HMS Diamond – Due back in Portsmouth in early December after propellor defect put a premature end to Gulf deployment.
- HMS Dragon – Participated in Exercise Formidable Shield in October and assisted with HMS Queen Elizabeth sea trials in early November. Alongside in Portsmouth.
- HMS Duncan – Alongside in Portsmouth – operational and may sail soon. (Possible candidate to replace Diamond in the Gulf?)
- HMS Defender – About to complete a lengthy major refit and return to the fleet.
Related articles
- HMS Diamond aborts Gulf mission after breaking down (The Times)
- HMS Diamond sails for the gulf for nine-month operational deployment (Royal Navy)
- HMS Daring’s deployment at the sharp end. Eventful. Successful. Important (Save the Royal Navy)
- Putting the Type 45 Propulsion problems in Perspective (Save the Royal Navy)
So the snapshot indicates that all our destroyers are non-operational at the moment?
The article says that 2 ships, Dragon and Duncan are alongside, that is to say they are tied up pier side. They can sortie if required.
It nonetheless is a very sad state of affairs for the senior service. I am not going to be surprised if we hear that a River class has been sent in Diamond’s stead.
A national disgrace. Our politicians seem to treat the military like they would a supermarket. “Sorry we have run out of destroyers today but we expecting one
in soon “.
Fully agree this is a National disgrace!
We need to increase the size of the Navy, we have 2 large carriers coming into service (hopefully with some planes even if most of them will be US marine corps), we have plans to build as yet an unconfirmed number of type 26 and 31 frigates ( I wouldn’t put it past the government to cut the numbers as they did with the type 45). as we all know it takes a long time to build ships and get them fully operational, most people seem to agree the minimum numbers need to be 25-30 Destroyers and Frigates. so how do we do this, my view is we look to extend the life of the type 23 Frigates by 5 years or so, these ships are getting old but have been upgraded and I would rather have 1 of these than a OPV. At least that way we will still have tried and trusted warships in service as we bring in the new ships and iron out any teething troubles whilst increasing the numbers.
This all assumes we can get the crews for these ships as well.
The command was desperate to go on time when the ship was clearly not ready. Laughing stock of the fleet now. I said before i left and it sailed that it was doomed. Couldn’t of happened to a better ships company mind.
Clearly you have no idea what you are talking about, the reason it returned to the UK had nothing to do with the stern seal, perhaps you should check your facts before putting your ten pence in!
I hope you weren’t implying it wasnt a good ships company????????? A good ship and great ships company
Everyone know’s the Royal Navy has been short of frigates and destroyers since the savage cuts of the mid 00’s on-wards, but to the service’s credit it managed to keep the vast majority of it’s standing commitments going for several years on slender resources.
What’s really worrying of late is how this tempo and level of commitment seems to be slowly eroding away. Ships languishing in port for want of manpower or breaking down mid deployment, whilst more and more of the remaining fleet is diverted to counter the Russian threat that everyone was so sure had disappeared.
What we’re left with is a cupboard that’s bare and a gradual shift towards commitments that are first gaped and then completely abandoned.
The fact that The Gulf is seen as the main focus outside of maintaining sovereignty in UK waters but is now without a single frigate or destroyer says it all…..it’s an absolute disgrace.
Challenger, that does not even factor the QE, and the escorts she will be needing when she finally deploys.
So much for Diamond being on standby for North Korea then!
Unfortunately, defence has always been something successive governments have believed they could get away with cutting based on the idea that assets spend 95% of their time doing very little. A big reason why we lost ships during the Falklands conflict was because some of our Destroyers didn’t have the Sea Dart system due to cuts in the 70’s. The government isn’t bothered because thee’s no real threat to us at the moment.
Aside from the older county class which destroyers lacked sea dart?
Is it absolutely necessary to have a ship permanently deployed ‘East of Suez’ (quaint Imperial term from another era) in the Gulf and Indian Ocean? This goes beyond deployment in our territorial waters or part of NATO.
We should match available resources to mission parameters instead of ‘punching above our weight’.
Due to the threat of piracy off the Horn of Africa yes it is. You know this, stop with your anti-British propaganda.
East of Suez is a geographical term, and has nothing to do with Empires, Imperialism or any other now non-politically correct matter.
In days gone bye, Merchant ships manned by those without foreign going certificates could not go East of Suez. [The Suez Canal, that’s its name. But if it had been the Bitter Lakes Canal, the term might well have been East of the Bitter Lakes].
What has either NATO or our Territorial Waters got to do with where the UK deploys warships? The UK has vital interests in the Gulf [LPG from Qatar, for example] and treaty obligations [Kuwait, for example], plus treaty obligations in the Far East to name but a few reasons for these deployments.
Might I just say, well done bae, let’s hope for the navy’s sake they don’t get the 26’s as wrong!
We need a lot more ships perhaps 20 or more perhaps now we are out of the eu and not governed by a load of Brussels and French pratts we may get them they don’t like us being a strong nation we need to go it alone and build our navy up again we have got two fantastic air craft carriers all we need is powerful support ships to look after them