Navy destroyers sail without missiles

#1
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/new...16/Navy-destroyers-sail-without-missiles.html
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'.... 'Trabant...no 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
lsquared said:
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?
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:
 

TheIronDuke

ADC
Book Reviewer
#8
theoriginalphantom said:
How does keeping the firing system on the ship, but putting the missiles in storage save any money?
We're obviously missing something here. Missiles stored on ship = free. Missiles stored in warehouse = cost.
 
#9
TheIronDuke said:
theoriginalphantom said:
How does keeping the firing system on the ship, but putting the missiles in storage save any money?
We're obviously missing something here. Missiles stored on ship = free. Missiles stored in warehouse = cost.
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
theoriginalphantom said:
TheIronDuke said:
theoriginalphantom said:
How does keeping the firing system on the ship, but putting the missiles in storage save any money?
We're obviously missing something here. Missiles stored on ship = free. Missiles stored in warehouse = cost.
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?
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
TheIronDuke said:
theoriginalphantom said:
How does keeping the firing system on the ship, but putting the missiles in storage save any money?
We're obviously missing something here. Missiles stored on ship = free. Missiles stored in warehouse = cost.
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?
 
#18
My only observation is preparation, are not one of the finest armed forces in the world prepared to go anywhere and do anything at a moments notice.

Just because the Taliban have no planes, it did not stop Osama bin lunatic, but getting his hands on some (via his friends) and crashing them into world trade centers etc

Like they say why bring a knife to a gun fight
 
#19
This makes a bit more sense but then maybe you have to ask just what are, it seems, semi functional old tubs like this actually doing .....

The Portsmouth-based Type 42 destroyers will be taken out of service next year.

The MoD said both vessels would still be able to defend themselves and carry out "a wide range of tasks".

An MoD spokesman said: "This decision has been made after careful consideration and is necessary to ensure support to the longer-running Type 42 destroyers can be sustained properly."

He said HMS Exeter was due to be the next Type 42 to be retired after more than 25 years in the front line and HMS Southampton, which is the second oldest Type 42, will follow in 2009.

He added: "HMS Exeter and HMS Southampton will continue to be capable of a wide range of tasks.

"They are armed with a 4.5in (11cm) gun and close range weapons systems and they carry a Lynx helicopter, which can deploy torpedoes, anti-ship missiles or a machine gun.

"Air defence for the fleet will continue to be provided by the other Type 42 destroyers that will remain in service until gradually replaced by the Daring class Type 45 destroyer, the first of which will enter service in late 2010."


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/hampshire/7442739.stm
 
#20
Blogg said:
This makes a bit more sense but then maybe you have to ask just what are, it seems, semi functional old tubs like this actually doing .....

The Portsmouth-based Type 42 destroyers will be taken out of service next year.

The MoD said both vessels would still be able to defend themselves and carry out "a wide range of tasks".

An MoD spokesman said: "This decision has been made after careful consideration and is necessary to ensure support to the longer-running Type 42 destroyers can be sustained properly."

He said HMS Exeter was due to be the next Type 42 to be retired after more than 25 years in the front line and HMS Southampton, which is the second oldest Type 42, will follow in 2009.

He added: "HMS Exeter and HMS Southampton will continue to be capable of a wide range of tasks.

"They are armed with a 4.5in (11cm) gun and close range weapons systems and they carry a Lynx helicopter, which can deploy torpedoes, anti-ship missiles or a machine gun.

"Air defence for the fleet will continue to be provided by the other Type 42 destroyers that will remain in service until gradually replaced by the Daring class Type 45 destroyer, the first of which will enter service in late 2010."


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/hampshire/7442739.stm


so what happens when we loose a ship

standard ministerial blurb On the day in question we were attacked by the wrong sort of enemy, this was unlike them to behave this way and caught us by surprise!!
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top