Navy destroyers sail without missiles

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by Blogg, Jun 10, 2008.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

    Not much surprises me these days. But this did.

    "Two Royal Navy destroyers have been sent to sea without their guided missiles, in order to save money, it has been revealed.

    The Sea Dart missiles, which have a range of 40 miles, have been used to protect HMS Exeter and HMS Southampton against air attack.

    Without the missiles, it is believed the ships are defenceless against enemy planes.

    Both Portsmouth based vessels have been operating without the missile systems since last year, in that time, the Exeter has twice sailed to the Mediterranean to join a NATO-led operation."

    "A Royal Navy spokesman said: "Sea Dart was deactivated in both ships last year, as part of a short-term decision to save money.

    "The missiles have been moved to storage. However, the firing equipment has remained in the ships and that means Sea Dart can be reinstated if operational priorities change.

    "With regards to HMS Exeter and her visits to the Mediterranean, a risk assessment would have been carried out and the level of danger was not felt to be excessive."

    Ah, so that is all right then.
  2. Typical.... whats the point of having the firing system 'operational' if the ammunition/misiles are in storage back in the UK.

    Its like sending troops into Iraq or Afghanistan with rifles, bayonets etc but no ammunition..... maybe the have to say... 'Bangety-Bang!' when facing the Talibandies.... and hope thay ain't got no ammo either....

    Have to send a 'Flash' message back to MoD in Londin-stan and ask permissions of Des Browne so ammunition can be drawn for the armoury and send out to Afghnistan...... words fail me...... but heres a few...

    ... 'Pot, Kettle... Black'... oops can't say that...... 'Mad Hatters'....'Tea Partys'.... ' Engine'...'Wheels... off... faling'....

    ..Deep Joy..... :p
  3. What a shambles! So 3 months at sea, the int picture changes/quick deployment in response to an emergency/someone has a pop, but it's alright, they'll just sail back to Portsmouth, load up, and come back.

    For Fcuks Sake.
  4. This dreadful government will be sending infantrymen into Afghanistan soon without ammunition because that too will save money.

    When will someone at the top of a Service 'tree' say enough is enough?
  5. .........and to top it all they advertise the fact. :roll:
  6. How does keeping the firing system on the ship, but putting the missiles in storage save any money? The only way I can see this making any kind of saving is by the missiles not being fired (which I assume would mean the ship in in the pooh) and therefore not needing to be replaced.
  7. I think Gen Dannatt is already leaning that way isn't he? But like us, beholden to the politicos. :x

    Anyway, no missiles? They had fuel to sail didn't they? Some people just want everything, that missile money is helping to keep chavs in Stella and fags, innit? :evil:
  8. TheIronDuke

    TheIronDuke LE Book Reviewer

    We're obviously missing something here. Missiles stored on ship = free. Missiles stored in warehouse = cost.
  9. Maybe they are running a small shop in the space the missiles would have taken up, therefore creating revenue greater than the cost of missile storage on land?
  10. And the air threat from the Taliban or insurgent Iraqi Air Force is what exactly?

    They haven't taken the launchers off , and no doubt the Goalkeepers and other point defence weapons have full ammo lockers.

    A non-story in my opinion, and the column inches would have been better used for something else.
  11. Yes, I believe they sell iPods and other such items that may be lost / taken by nasty Iranians on your average sea voyage 8)
  12. Missiles Stored in warehouse = Lucrative contract for Private company; jobs for the boys? :x
  13. A non story (hence taking the urine out of it) but seriously how does taking a missile off a ship save any money?
  14. Missiles stored in warehouse = not getting degraded exposed to the littorial?

    Assuming they are being stored properly. Are they being stored in a RN facility or a private one?
  15. If the system is due to be replaced anyway, does this mean we are keeping them ashore just to keep the resale value up?