| Submit your comments on this article |
| Britain |
| Two RN destroyers unable to fire their missiles - because they've been removed to save cash |
| 2008-06-11 |
| Two Royal Navy destroyers could not fire their missiles if they came under attack - because they have been removed to save cash. Type 42s HMS Exeter and HMS Southampton have been working without their Sea Dart guided missile system since Christmas, it was revealed today. To go with the cutbacks, at least half a dozen operating crew have been transferred to other ships. The missiles, used to protect the destroyers and larger aircraft carriers against air attack, have been stored away even though HMS Exeter has sailed to the Mediterranean twice and joined a NATO-led operation in that time. It has provoked anger from defence sources who claim the navy is suffering from short-term cost cutting. Rear Admiral David Bawtree, the former Commander of Portsmouth Naval Base, said: "It seems to be a sign of the times that there is a lack of willingness to spend money. "It is surprising that the destroyers are sailing without their primary defence, though I would add they still have lesser gun defences. "But you only have to look at the comments in the media about Army pay to see there is disgruntlement, and spending is much, much lower now than during my time." Sea Dart - first used successfully in the Falklands War in 1982 - will be phased out as the new Type 45 Daring class destroyers come into service. But Southampton and Exeter are still supposed to be fully operational until 2009. Even the Navy website for HMS Southampton advertises that Sea Dart is her primary armament. Former naval officer and editor of Warship World, Mike Critchley, said: "You cannot claim to have ships doing a job before the Type 45s come in when in fact they are missing vital abilities. "As a taxpayer it is not reassuring to see an expensive destroyer like Exeter engaged in not much more than a PR tour." Defence Select Committee member and Portsmouth South MP Mike Hancock said: "I am very surprised to learn that we have warships coming out of British waters without their main air defences. Questions need to be put to the Navy asking how that was allowed to happen because you cannot have ships deploying without important equipment." A Royal Navy spokesman said: "I can confirm that Sea Dart was deactivated in both ships last year, as part of a short-term financial planning decision to save money. It was carried out in Exeter during the summer, and then in Southampton after her deployment to the South Atlantic at the end of the year. "The ships have a specific operating staff for Sea Dart and they have been transferred to other ships, and 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." The Sea Dart is a surface-to-air missile system built by British Aerospace (BAe) and has been in use since 1977. It is fired from the deck of the ship out of a cradle carrying two missiles at a time, and targets planes and other missiles. A specially-trained weapons crew and warfare team operate the system, which can protect a fleet from threats up to 40 nautical miles away. It was originally fitted to both the Type 42s and Invincible class aircraft carriers, but was removed from the carriers during refits between 1998 and 2000 to create space on the flight deck for the RAF Harrier GR9 aircraft. Since then the destroyers, which are supposed to support and protect the carriers, have retained the system. The Sea Dart was used during the Falklands War and is credited with seven kills, including a British Gazelle helicopter downed by friendly fire. The system continued to be used in the 1991 Gulf War, and was credited with the first validated engagement of a missile by a missile when it downed an Iraqi silkworm weapon. The Type 42s have a range of other weapons. The ship carries a 4.5 inch medium range gun, which is maintained for use at any time, and with a Lynx helicopter embarked the ship gains further offensive power. The navy's new Type 45s will not carry Sea Dart but will be fitted with a more modern missile system. |
| Posted by:Anonymoose |
| #19 If I recall correctly, Sea Dart is a thoroughly obsolete system that isn't capable of shooting down missiles and would be of little use vs land-based missiles in the straits of Hormuz. That's not the point. The point is that naval warships put to sea and took part in patrols and exercises without one of their weapon systems in tip-top operating condition. In fact, the Type 42 DD's armament is as follows, Armament: Twin launcher for GWS-30 Sea Dart missiles, 4.5 inch (114 mm) Mark 8 naval gun, 2 x 3-tube STWS-1 launchers for 324 mm (12.75") A/S torpedoes, 2 x 20 mm Phalanx CIWS (not on Argentine ships), 2 x Oerlikon / BMARC 20 mm L/70 KBA guns in GAM-B01 single mounts, 4 x MM38 Exocet anti-ship missile launchers (only on Argentine ships) Note that those Exocets are only mounted on Argentine ships. Without Sea Dart, that leaves the ship with 4.5 inch (114 mm) Mark 8 naval gun, 2 x 3-tube STWS-1 launchers for 324 mm (12.75") A/S torpedoes, 2 x 20 mm Phalanx CIWS (not on Argentine ships), 2 x Oerlikon / BMARC 20 mm L/70 KBA guns in GAM-B01 single mounts, or 1 single weapon which could be used for anti-ship duty (the torpedoes are intended for anti-submarine duty and the Phalanx and Oerlikons don't have ranges effective nough to make them worth using for anything other than close-in defense work which is what they're intended for. That 4.5-inch gun has a rate of fire of 25 rds/minute (approximately) and a range of 12 nautical miles. By comparison, the Harpoon ASM has a range of 60-150+ nautical miles, the Standard ASM has a range of 65-100 nautical miles, the Chinese Silkworm a range of 150+ nautical miles. That 12nm gun ain't gonna' help when the enemy's shooting at you from 5 times that distance away. All those ships can do is run away fom an enemy or act as targets for enemy missiles. Lord Nelson is spinning in his grave. |
| Posted by: FOTSGreg 2008-06-11 23:10 |
| #18 NEWS > BANK OF ENGLAND: WE [Btitain] FACE THE LONGEST ERA OF FINNACIAL TURMOIL SEEN YET. |
| Posted by: JosephMendiola 2008-06-11 20:41 |
| #17 Buwaya, the C-201 is an old chinese copy of an even older soviet design. Its max speed is 0.8 mach, its a couple meters long and has wings and a large radar cross section. Its what the SeaDart was designed to operate against. And even a poor anti-missle defense is better than nothing at all - as Im sure you'd agree were you to be crew abord that ship tasked to go to the straights. |
| Posted by: OldSpook 2008-06-11 20:10 |
| #16 If I recall correctly, Sea Dart is a thoroughly obsolete system that isn't capable of shooting down missiles and would be of little use vs land-based missiles in the straits of Hormuz. Its also probable that these ships aren't likely to be threatened by enemy aircraft that won't be handled by other weapons. The RN has ships that can handle Argentinian and Iranian aircraft if they had to. And the missiles themselves are very old. I wonder just how well they would work. The larger truth is that these ships (type 42's) are ancient and of little use for much these days, other than for ASW, if that. I suppose the ships are still kept around to keep the crews in practice. The RN has been starved of funds and new ships for too long. |
| Posted by: buwaya 2008-06-11 18:45 |
| #15 So the namesake of the WWII HMS Exeter would be hard pressed to face a modern day version of the 'Graf Spee'. This is all so sad, and sadly, predictable. Where does the line form for the surrender ceremony. Out with a wimper. |
| Posted by: Total War 2008-06-11 13:14 |
| #14 Wouldn't it have been cheaper to just leave the missiles in place? |
| Posted by: ed 2008-06-11 12:04 |
| #13 Removing one missile system doesn't totally neuter a ship in battle. Don't ships generally fight in what is called a Battle Group? Many ships using complementry systems to both defend and project power? |
| Posted by: Cyber Sarge 2008-06-11 12:01 |
| #12 Unbelievable - perhaps they should add a Corvus to facilitate being boarded. So if something breaks out somewhere, like the Falklands or russians threatening their deep sea North Atlantic rigs, they have to be re-supplied before going into theatre? |
| Posted by: swksvolFF 2008-06-11 11:29 |
| #11 Now you've gone further than me! |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2008-06-11 10:43 |
| #10 Chances are they'll turn to the oil sheiks soon to replace NATO, at which point control of nukes is a lost cause entirely, as opposed to being nearly a lost cause. |
| Posted by: lotp 2008-06-11 10:14 |
| #9 Why would anyone be surprised? NATO was and remains nothing more than military welfare for some of the richest countries in the world. Free riders. Their efforts in Afghanistan are nothing more than workfare to convince the gullible Americans to continue to expend annually billions more to their lavish neo-socialist life styles. They're like those on the dole in New Orleans who 'expect' others to take of them, rescue them, to provide the basics of life. 'Woe is me' is not a program. |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2008-06-11 09:26 |
| #8 Meanwhile... |
| Posted by: anonymous5089 2008-06-11 07:17 |
| #7 And they want to build a carrier? The British are finished as a nation and a culture if they don't pull their heads out of the sand. |
| Posted by: DarthVader 2008-06-11 07:15 |
| #6 UK defense has been red penciled by Gordon Brown for quite some time. |
| Posted by: Sock Puppet of Doom 2008-06-11 04:28 |
| #5 Simple solution. Use thse savbed wight for putting politicians on the vessels. |
| Posted by: JFM 2008-06-11 02:46 |
| #4 You know what the Iranians call these when the pss thru the Striats of Hormuz? Target Practice. One C-201 Iranian made Silkworm, (they have plenty at Umm Qasar) and these ships are toast and their crew will be chum. Stupid bastard bean counters and idiot underfunding politicians! |
| Posted by: OldSpook 2008-06-11 01:41 |
| #3 But they have been given the Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch! |
| Posted by: crosspatch 2008-06-11 01:24 |
| #2 The US has the same situation with the remaining FFG-7 class frigates, the main AA missile system has been removed. |
| Posted by: Abdominal Snowman 2008-06-11 01:08 |
| #1 Lest we fergit, 1990's NET > "GIVE ME EURO-SOCIALISM, D *** YOU, OR GIVE ME DEATH"! Now, many Battlestar Galactica Cyclon Babe yarns later in 2008, I'm gonna go for broke and say DEATH IT IS = DEATH WINS??? |
| Posted by: JosephMendiola 2008-06-11 00:09 |