Notify of

Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

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.

It was a stern seal problem all along.

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…’s an absolute disgrace.


Challenger, that does not even factor the QE, and the escorts she will be needing when she finally deploys.

Lord Curzon

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.

Harry Nelson

Aside from the older county class which destroyers lacked sea dart?

Iqbal Ahmed

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.

David Graham

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!

Raymond Leake

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