Article

2008-06-11 Britain

Two RN destroyers unable to fire their missiles - because they've been removed to save cash

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Anonymoose 2008-06-11 00:00|| || Front Page|| [2 views ] Top

#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|| 2008-06-11 00:09|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2008-06-11 01:08|| Front Page Top

#3 But they have been given the Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch!

Posted by crosspatch 2008-06-11 01:24|| 2008-06-11 01:24|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2008-06-11 01:41|| Front Page Top

#5 Simple solution. Use thse savbed wight for putting politicians on the vessels.

Posted by JFM">JFM 2008-06-11 02:46|| 2008-06-11 02:46|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2008-06-11 04:28|| Front Page Top

#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">DarthVader 2008-06-11 07:15|| 2008-06-11 07:15|| Front Page Top

#8 Meanwhile...

Posted by anonymous5089 2008-06-11 07:17|| 2008-06-11 07:17|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2008-06-11 09:26|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2008-06-11 10:14|| Front Page Top

#11 Now you've gone further than me!

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2008-06-11 10:43|| 2008-06-11 10:43|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2008-06-11 11:29|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2008-06-11 12:01|| Front Page Top

#14 Wouldn't it have been cheaper to just leave the missiles in place?

Posted by ed 2008-06-11 12:04|| 2008-06-11 12:04|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2008-06-11 13:14|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2008-06-11 18:45|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2008-06-11 20:10|| Front Page Top

#18 NEWS > BANK OF ENGLAND: WE [Btitain] FACE THE LONGEST ERA OF FINNACIAL TURMOIL SEEN YET.

Posted by JosephMendiola 2008-06-11 20:41|| 2008-06-11 20:41|| Front Page Top

#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">FOTSGreg 2008-06-11 23:10|| fots.cdgroup.org]">[fots.cdgroup.org] 2008-06-11 23:10|| Front Page Top

23:35 Iblis
23:26 Slolugum Tojo8008
23:10 FOTSGreg
22:59 tu3031
22:51 DMFD
22:49 Chinegum McGurque5166
22:32 Gullible Traveler
22:28 Gullible Traveler
22:27 ed
22:18 Chaviter the Wicked aka Broadhead6
22:12 Gullible Traveler
22:03 Harcourt Jush7795
21:50 badanov
21:44 Threse Ghibelline5495
21:40 Clereling Lumplump3369
21:36 Skunky Glins 5***
21:24 Eric Jablow
21:23 Fred
21:07 Frank G
20:53 Jack Murtha
20:46 OldSpook
20:41 JosephMendiola
20:29 Nimble Spemble
20:25 phil_b