It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Royal Navy destroyer put to sea without missiles a 'disgrace'

page: 1
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 23 2009 @ 01:31 AM
link   

Royal Navy destroyer put to sea without missiles a 'disgrace'




A state of the art Royal Navy destroyer is to enter service without its vital missile system working in a move branded "disgraceful" by a committee of MPs.

The new Type 45 destroyer will become operational without being able to fire its advanced Astor air defence missiles because of a series of failings by the Ministry of Defence, according to the Public Accounts Committee.

The destroyer, which has been suggested to provide air defence security during the 2012 Olympics
(visit the link for the full news article)

www.guardian.co.uk...
www.telegraph.co.uk...

[edit on 23-6-2009 by john124]

[edit on 23-6-2009 by john124]




posted on Jun, 23 2009 @ 01:32 AM
link   
I don't know what to say... I mean it will be a sitting duck for christ sake! All that expensive hardware and it won't be able to shoot down whatever is attacking it from the air that is incoming at high speeds.


If this was Russian I would be laughing, but come on British government you can do better!

I've also heard that we may not be able to upgrade our jets to stealth F-35's either as we can't afford it, or at the most we'd have to cut the number down below the minimum we need to defend our airspace.


It's getting ridiculous like it was in the late 70's when we didn't have enough planes and ammunition to fight a soviet attack for more than 3 days.


I know what we can do... the US has plenty of destroyers, can't you sell us a few.... the US really need the cash, we need cheaper ships that actually have missile anti-air defenses.




(visit the link for the full news article)

[edit on 23-6-2009 by john124]

[edit on 23-6-2009 by john124]



posted on Jun, 23 2009 @ 01:40 AM
link   
Why are they so fast to put this destroyer to sea? Do they need it somewhere? North Korea, Iran... where? Otherwise this is just stupid and may results of deaths.... meaning those responsable will be responsable for death by negligence.

[edit on 23-6-2009 by Vitchilo]



posted on Jun, 23 2009 @ 01:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Vitchilo
Why are they so fast to put this destroyer to sea? Do they need it somewhere? North Korea, Iran... where? Otherwise this is just stupid and may results of deaths.... meaning those responsable will be responsable for death by negligence.

[edit on 23-6-2009 by Vitchilo]


I know I was thinking along those lines, but didn't want to mention it first. Is the situation with N.Korea & Iran escalating without us being told.



posted on Jun, 23 2009 @ 01:46 AM
link   
hahaha Pointing the finger of doom towards UK



posted on Jun, 23 2009 @ 01:46 AM
link   
theres a bit more to the `upgrade to the stealth F35` than meets the eye - although money is a factor right now - so is getting the engine the UK wants , and getting access to put the UK`s own weapons on it.


edit:

to the OP

please put the news source


[edit on 23/6/09 by Harlequin]



posted on Jun, 23 2009 @ 01:48 AM
link   
you know...we could sell you an aircraft carrier full of planes. how does that sound? they can hold about 70-something planes if i remember correctly. do we have a deal?



posted on Jun, 23 2009 @ 01:52 AM
link   
And this is exactly why I freaking hate Labour. Do we think this situation could have arisen under Thatcher? Of course not.



posted on Jun, 23 2009 @ 01:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by Harlequin
theres a bit more to the `upgrade to the stealth F35` than meets the eye - although money is a factor right now - so is getting the engine the UK wants , and getting access to put the UK`s own weapons on it.


edit:

to the OP

please put the news source


[edit on 23/6/09 by Harlequin]


I heard this on newsnight 1 or 2 months ago saying that we only either upgrade jets we already have or buy the F-35's. Original budget has been cut.

This source states we could even be scrapping Harrier jets altogether, but doesn't say anything about F-35's. Hopefully this means we'll be getting the F-35's then. Hopefully sooner rather than later.

Harrier jets could be scrapped in RAF spending cuts

[edit on 23-6-2009 by john124]



posted on Jun, 23 2009 @ 01:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by ELECTRICkoolaidZOMBIEtest
you know...we could sell you an aircraft carrier full of planes. how does that sound? they can hold about 70-something planes if i remember correctly. do we have a deal?


yes throw in a few F-22 raptors and maybe a B2 stealth please



posted on Jun, 23 2009 @ 01:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Harlequin
theres a bit more to the `upgrade to the stealth F35` than meets the eye - although money is a factor right now - so is getting the engine the UK wants , and getting access to put the UK`s own weapons on it.


edit:

to the OP

please put the news source


[edit on 23/6/09 by Harlequin]


Yeah I hear the F 35 is great at destroying the real threat that now comes from within our own boarders who go on tubes to blow people up. It seems all his stealth weaponry is just expensive toys, The uk is never gonna need these planes.

If theres a ww3 it'll be over in a week, wiping out most of the population with nukes. The money would be better spent on schools and hospitals if you ask me, not fancy weapons of war



posted on Jun, 23 2009 @ 01:59 AM
link   
reply to post by woodwardjnr
 


huh wha? why quote me when you say that?



posted on Jun, 23 2009 @ 02:13 AM
link   
From what I have read elsewhere over the last few months, the Type 45's are already very late and waaaaaay over budget....no surprise there though.
Now, in the real world of the private sector, we order things and place contracts with penalty clauses included, so we don't get stung for more money and the supplier gets hit with cost overruns and delays, not the buyer. So, why does this never seem to happen on government contracts of any sort?
And those same bozos in government whine that they could make more money in the private sector than in government? Who the hell would hire those incompetent fools in the first place, with a track record corruption and incompetence in everything they get involved in?

There is too much politics involved in the procurement processes, by people who have little or no understanding of what the goal is or the equipment usage. As long as favoured companies get the contracts and provide the necessary kickbacks, political party donations and backing etc, they will continue to reap the rewards, while ripping of the taxpayers.


[edit on 23-6-2009 by Britguy]



posted on Jun, 23 2009 @ 02:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by john124

Originally posted by ELECTRICkoolaidZOMBIEtest
you know...we could sell you an aircraft carrier full of planes. how does that sound? they can hold about 70-something planes if i remember correctly. do we have a deal?


yes throw in a few F-22 raptors and maybe a B2 stealth please


www.navy.mil...

hmmmm....have your lawyers call mine.


but in all seriousness
www.deagel.com...

the type 45 destroyer is apparently built for anti-air capabilities....which it now distinctly lacks. truly amazing



posted on Jun, 23 2009 @ 02:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by woodwardjnr

Originally posted by Harlequin
theres a bit more to the `upgrade to the stealth F35` than meets the eye - although money is a factor right now - so is getting the engine the UK wants , and getting access to put the UK`s own weapons on it.


edit:

to the OP

please put the news source


[edit on 23/6/09 by Harlequin]


Yeah I hear the F 35 is great at destroying the real threat that now comes from within our own boarders who go on tubes to blow people up. It seems all his stealth weaponry is just expensive toys, The uk is never gonna need these planes.

If theres a ww3 it'll be over in a week, wiping out most of the population with nukes. The money would be better spent on schools and hospitals if you ask me, not fancy weapons of war


Don't forget N.Korea and Iran as well. The world is more unstable than a few homegrown terrorists, and the current wars 'still' going on.

IMO a ww3 type conflict would not be instant nuclear war. For example if we are locked in conflict with both Iran and N.Korea at the same time whilst we have reduced army numbers, mothballed jets and built warships that cant defend themselves adequently, then this gives the Chinese and Russians ideas! Ideas to go and steal some land from somewhere 'like' Georgia knowing full well we don't have the man power to intervene even if we wanted to.

I think that would be very dangerous as even the British Isles isn't well protected enough now. I mean which side would nuke who if the Russians and Chinese marched through Europe. I think whichever side lost most soldiers too early would consider it, and I suspect Russia would rather take the world with them in the process than surrender. Maybe even the US/Britain would. Personally I think it could be better to surrender if we lost rather than fire nukes. They are only going to fire 'em back.

Anyway..... I know it's highly unlikely and I hope that never happens.



posted on Jun, 23 2009 @ 02:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by ELECTRICkoolaidZOMBIEtest

Originally posted by john124

Originally posted by ELECTRICkoolaidZOMBIEtest
you know...we could sell you an aircraft carrier full of planes. how does that sound? they can hold about 70-something planes if i remember correctly. do we have a deal?


yes throw in a few F-22 raptors and maybe a B2 stealth please


www.navy.mil...

hmmmm....have your lawyers call mine.


but in all seriousness
www.deagel.com...

the type 45 destroyer is apparently built for anti-air capabilities....which it now distinctly lacks. truly amazing


I know... it will have the ability to track incoming planes and missiles better than any previous royal navy warship, but can't shoot them down.


I'm truly speechless..........................



posted on Jun, 23 2009 @ 02:41 AM
link   
I agree this story is a 'disgrace,' and should be an embarrassment for and Brit. Sending an advanced naval vessel to see with out means of defense is joke and dangerous at the same time. I can tell I wouldn't want to go on deployment with that boat.

Those sailors will be sitting ducks. This is a disgrace to one of the finest Navies in the history of world and with a storied tradition to boot. Parliament must have an investigation and figure out who is responsible for this travesty in terms of procurement for that vessel.

The British people ought to email, write, or do what ever they need to do to get their MP's on this one in Parliament. This needs investigation immediately and that ship should be dry docked until this matter is resolved. There is no need to have sea trials when the ship is not even finished.


[edit on 23-6-2009 by Jakes51]



posted on Jun, 23 2009 @ 03:01 AM
link   
reply to post by john124
 





I don't know what to say... I mean it will be a sitting duck for christ sake! All that expensive hardware and it won't be able to shoot down whatever is attacking it from the air that is incoming at high speeds.


The 45 does have some other defenses:

Type 45 destroyer

Guns:


* Guns o 1 x BAE Systems 4.5 inch Mk 8 mod 1 gun. The Darings are designed to accommodate a 155 mm gun upgrade currently being studied by the RN.[13] o 2 x Oerlikon 30 mm KCB guns on single DS-30B mounts o Fitted 'for but not with' 2 x Phalanx 20 mm close-in weapons systems


Antisubmarine including torpedos:


* Anti-submarine o MFS 7000 sonar o The embarked Lynx HMA 8 helicopter or Merlin HM1 helicopter is capable of carrying Sting Ray torpedo. The Merlin HM1 helicopter is fitted with its own dipping sonar and carries sonobuoys.


Countermeasures:



The 4.5 inch Mark 8 naval gun has a Naval Gunfire Support (NGS) role. The proposed upgrade to a 155mm gun would increase range and explosive effect as well as giving commonality with Army 155mm guns in logistics and a possibility of a co-development of advanced ammunition for inter-service use in the future.[13]

Aircraft:


* Aircraft o 1 Lynx HMA 8 helicopter - Sea Skua anti-ship missiles and Sting Ray torpedoes or 1 Merlin helicopter - Sting Ray torpedoes, dipping sonar and sonobuoys. o The flight deck of the Type 45 is big enough to accommodate aircraft up to the size of the Chinook.


Missels could be loaded at sea at any time.

Irregardless, the lack of missels implies brainless political correctness!

[edit on 23/6/09 by plumranch]



posted on Jun, 23 2009 @ 03:10 AM
link   
www.telegraph.co.uk...

theres the link - interestingly you mixed around the original format.

but heres from the guardian:

www.guardian.co.uk...




It says it is a "disgrace" that the long-delayed HMS Daring, the first destroyer in the new class, will enter service this year "without a principal anti-air missile system (PAAMS) having been fired from the ship, and will not achieve full operational capability until 2011". The Commons public accounts committee says the new Type 45 destroyer has been the victim of serious mistakes including a "culture of over-optimism", "poor management arrangements" and "inappropriate commercial structures".



so what needs to be understood is quite simple:


the PAMS missiles arn`t ready - the ship is , so blame the bloody french please.


also the new carriers will be in the same situation - in service BEFORE the UK apparantly gets the F35.



posted on Jun, 23 2009 @ 03:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by plumranch
reply to post by john124
 





I don't know what to say... I mean it will be a sitting duck for christ sake! All that expensive hardware and it won't be able to shoot down whatever is attacking it from the air that is incoming at high speeds.


The 45 does have some other defenses:

Type 45 destroyer

Guns:


* Guns o 1 x BAE Systems 4.5 inch Mk 8 mod 1 gun. The Darings are designed to accommodate a 155 mm gun upgrade currently being studied by the RN.[13] o 2 x Oerlikon 30 mm KCB guns on single DS-30B mounts o Fitted 'for but not with' 2 x Phalanx 20 mm close-in weapons systems


Antisubmarine including torpedos:


* Anti-submarine o MFS 7000 sonar o The embarked Lynx HMA 8 helicopter or Merlin HM1 helicopter is capable of carrying Sting Ray torpedo. The Merlin HM1 helicopter is fitted with its own dipping sonar and carries sonobuoys.


Countermeasures:



The 4.5 inch Mark 8 naval gun has a Naval Gunfire Support (NGS) role. The proposed upgrade to a 155mm gun would increase range and explosive effect as well as giving commonality with Army 155mm guns in logistics and a possibility of a co-development of advanced ammunition for inter-service use in the future.[13]

Aircraft:


* Aircraft o 1 Lynx HMA 8 helicopter - Sea Skua anti-ship missiles and Sting Ray torpedoes or 1 Merlin helicopter - Sting Ray torpedoes, dipping sonar and sonobuoys. o The flight deck of the Type 45 is big enough to accommodate aircraft up to the size of the Chinook.


Missels could be loaded at sea at any time.

Irregardless, the lack of missels implies brainless political correctness!

[edit on 23/6/09 by plumranch]


Of course but only when they're actually manufactured first.

And these other guns don't provide the same air cover as anti-air missiles.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join