UK Frigate Carried Only Four AA Missiles to Libya

#1
http://defensetech.org/2011/11/23/uk-frigate-carried-only-four-aa-missiles-to-libya/


Had a butchers around, couldn't find a thread on this so here it is. Shocking, yet unsuprising really. The navy are shit, not their fault i guess but really? Someone needs to be throttled for this. We couldn't project naval power any more if we tried. The navy has been whittled down to nothing short of a depressing joke.

That slag Cristina Fernández de Kirchner must be laughing her tits off.
 
#2
http://defensetech.org/2011/11/23/uk-frigate-carried-only-four-aa-missiles-to-libya/


Had a butchers around, couldn't find a thread on this so here it is. Shocking, yet unsuprising really. The navy are shit, not their fault i guess but really? Someone needs to be throttled for this. We couldn't project naval power any more if we tried. The navy has been whittled down to nothing short of a depressing joke.

That slag Cristina Fernández de Kirchner must be laughing her tits off.

As there is no confirmation what is was carrying its not much of a story.
 

OldSnowy

LE
Moderator
Book Reviewer
#3
And what do you expect it to be carrying? Do you go on exercise with live Ammo? Dangerous, wasteful and highly expensive to carry this kit around if not needed.

I would suggest that, if there had been a requirement, it would have taken all of, ooh, maybe twelve hours to fly a load of Seawolf out to the Ship.


Non-story.
 
#4
I disagree that this is a non story. If it is called a warship it should be able to do what it says on the tin. Would the yanks be swanning around with a couple of pointy things in the bins?
 
#5
I'd be more interested to know how many harpoons were being carried. Seems the RAF have stopped using harpoon, leaving them with no means of attacking ships, and the plans to fit them to T45 have been quietly abandoned. Couldn't be that our remaining stocks are knackered and we can't afford to replace them, could it?

Never mind. Next time we're up against a third world navy and they sink a T45 with anti tank missiles fired from a WWII corvette, I'm sure "lessons will be learned".
 
#6
And what do you expect it to be carrying? Do you go on exercise with live Ammo? Dangerous, wasteful and highly expensive to carry this kit around if not needed.

I would suggest that, if there had been a requirement, it would have taken all of, ooh, maybe twelve hours to fly a load of Seawolf out to the Ship.


Non-story.
Sorry OS - it is a story. It wasn't an exercise and in any event the carriage of Sea Wolf in its overpack in an environmentally controlled ships magazine isn't the same as hauling a MILAN around in the back of an APC. And its highly unlikely that 1 BLANKS could be diverted from Salisbury Plain to go somewhere that has suddenly become a problem. HM ships should; We spend a lot of money on HM Ships (and we should) so saving money on not giving said ships ammo for self-defence is just stupid. Ready to Fight | Royal Navy


"The Royal Navy and Royal Marines are ready to fight and win in combat at sea and from the sea. Maritime forces in international waters have complete independence of action and are able to roam the globe freely, enabling the UK Government to employ military force at a time and place of its choosing without having to rely on the help of other nations."



But without an air defence capability though.
 

seaweed

LE
Book Reviewer
#9
Always carried a full war outfit. The only difference is with conventional shells the fuzes are carried separately - the order 'Fuze the Outfit' concentrates the mind. You never know where you are suddenly going to be sent to next, and the only notice you get is the time it takes to get there ('Proceed with all despatch to ..'). That's the fun of being a go-anywhere, do-anything Navy.
 
#10
And what do you expect it to be carrying? Do you go on exercise with live Ammo? Dangerous, wasteful and highly expensive to carry this kit around if not needed.

I would suggest that, if there had been a requirement, it would have taken all of, ooh, maybe twelve hours to fly a load of Seawolf out to the Ship.


Non-story.
Let's hope the attacking planes had a 13 hour journey time to the ship!

As mentioned above, the moment one Betty's Boats leaves the quay/jetty, she should be tooled up for the task at hand and ready to redeploy as needed. That to my mind would include full stocks of weapons.
 

A2_Matelot

LE
Book Reviewer
#11
As there is no confirmation what is was carrying its not much of a story.
It is true - the powers that be knew this and decided AA engagements were unlikely and that boarding ops/NGS support would be more probable so took the calculated decision to send her - they also had contingency plans to send AAW capability if the int/situation changed. You also have to remember this was a coalition operation we weren't stood off the coast by ourselves, friendlies were nearby. No major story.
 
#12
It is true - the powers that be knew this and decided AA engagements were unlikely and that boarding ops/NGS support would be more probable so took the calculated decision to send her - they also had contingency plans to send AAW capability if the int/situation changed. You also have to remember this was a coalition operation we weren't stood off the coast by ourselves, friendlies were nearby. No major story.
HMS Westminster was in London prior to being sent to Libya, she stopped at Gibraltar for fuel and stores. Westminster
could and should have left Gibraltar fully armed.

Given the rapidly changing nature of events in North Africa at the time the decision to send her with only four Sea Wolf's onboard was a little shortsighted don't you think?
Gadaffi's airforce might have been a bit of a lemon but somebody decided there was no air threat? Despite most of North Africa being in the throws of revolution at the time?

On what basis was it decided that it was unlikely that AA engagements would be a threat? A crystal ball perhaps?

Not to worry, its unlikley that all the friendly forces in the area at the time took the same decision not to bother fully arming their ships...
 
#13
I'm concerned that the ship wasn't tooled up to CES if it was going into Harm's Way.

Cuts to training and numbers is one thing but putting a ship in potential danger like this is silly and dangerous. It's the equivalent of sending out patrols in Helmand with 10 rounds.
 
#14
Seeing as we set sail for the Falkland with Nukes on board, since they were being carried as a matter of course, the idea of us deliberately sailing into a war zone with no more than a token air defence is abhorrent.

Whoever made that decision should be bloody keelhauled!

Thing is, I can't see any politician being foolish enough to put their name on such a ridiculous decision, especially given what happened in '82 - which leaves me with the impression that the decision must have been taken by someone in the navy... which is just incredible!
 
#17
It is true - the powers that be knew this and decided AA engagements were unlikely and that boarding ops/NGS support would be more probable so took the calculated decision to send her - they also had contingency plans to send AAW capability if the int/situation changed. You also have to remember this was a coalition operation we weren't stood off the coast by ourselves, friendlies were nearby. No major story.
But what if on the way to the Med something even more pressing than Libya with more likelihood of AA engagements had come up? Surely if a RN ship isn't sat in port then she should be fully bombed up just in case something does come up? It's not like you can nip back to Pompey and replen if a war somewhere kicks off and you're needed there.
 
#18
The implementation of JIT logistics for the Armed Forces taken to its logical conclusion. Yet another innovation brought to you by beancounters able to tell you the price of everything and the value of nothing.
 

A2_Matelot

LE
Book Reviewer
#19
But what if on the way to the Med something even more pressing than Libya had come up with more likelihood of AA engagements had come up? Surely if a RN ship isn't sat in port then she should be fully bombed up just in case something does come up? It's not like you can nip back to Pompey and replen if a war somewhere kicks off and you're needed there.
Read my post; there were standby plans in case the AAW threat changed. Also think of the Cornwall episode, the Navy didn't take the decision lightly and had a balanced view.
 
#20
Read my post; there were standby plans in case the AAW threat changed. Also think of the Cornwall episode, the Navy didn't take the decision lightly and had a balanced view.
What about the Cornwall episode? The whole point is that unless the ship is in Dock she should be tooled up and ready to rock and roll. No one is suggesting the missiles should be in launchers; they are suggesting that for the amount of cash we pay for the capability we should have - capability.

Edited once because the computer geeks are farting around with the system and its both slow and delayed.:crash::crash:
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top