Destroyer HMS Daring begins sea trials

hms daring


The first of the Royal Navy’s new Type 45 destroyers, HMS Daring, made its maiden voyage 18 July 2007 to begin sea trials.

HMS Daring, billed as the world’s most advanced warship, slipped its moorings on the Clyde to begin tests off the west coast of Scotland.

The £1 billion destroyer features the latest propulsion, anti-aircraft weapon and stealth technology – and is the first warship to have a designated gym. Its radar equipment can track a cricket ball moving at up to three times the speed of sound, and it has a range of hundreds of miles.

The 500ft vessel can also make itself appear as small as a fishing boat to enemy radar, and is armed with missiles 20 times more manoeuvrable than a Formula One car.

The ship was cheered by hundreds of spectators and staff from BAE Systems at Scotstoun on the Clyde.

HMS Daring is one of six Type 45s being built for the navy, at a total cost of £6 billion and will enter full service in 2009.

Commander David Shutts, the most senior officer aboard the new ship, said: “Both I and the rest of the Royal Naval ship’s company have been looking forward to this event. It’s not every day you take a first-of-class warship to sea.” 

[more photos at]

2 Responses to “Destroyer HMS Daring begins sea trials”

  1. 1 Brian Davies

    When I see D32 I see H.M.S Camperdown NOT H.M.S Daring. What are the wankers in admiralty thinking about. I say ships and numbers should be kept together.

  2. 2 David

    Hi Brian

    Well, youv’e got me.

    From Wikipedia and other InterWeb sources:

    The fourth Camperdown (D32), launched in 1944, was a Battle-class
    destroyer that served in World War II and was broken up in 1970.

    Daring (D05), a destroyer launched in 1949 and broken up in 1971.

    Daring (D32), a Type 45 destroyer launched on February 1 2006.

    As best I can tell, D05 WAS available as a designation for the new Daring, but they chose not to use it. Since RN seems to like two numerals, and there are so many ships, numbers must be recycled ‘inappropriately’ on some occaisions, it seems.



Leave a Reply