British warships lack firepower to attack Houthi land targets

The Telegraph ^ | 1/28/24 | edward malnick

[mac_truck]

Britain’s warships cannot attack Houthi targets on land because they lack the firepower, in a situation described by former defence chiefs as a “scandal”.

None of the Royal Navy’s destroyers or frigates have the ability to fire missiles at targets on land, leaving the US to carry out the majority of strikes on Houthi targets with support from RAF planes based 1,500 miles away.

A British defence source said HMS Diamond, the destroyer stationed in the Red Sea, had not joined retaliatory strikes on Houthi targets because it did not have “the capability to fire to land targets”. The Ministry of Defence (MoD) said it had instead been “directly involved in successfully destroying Houthi drones targeting shipping in the Red Sea”.

This weekend, a British-linked container ship caught fire after becoming the latest vessel targeted by Houthi rebels.

[mware]

Saw a series on YouTube about Eliz 2’s first trip out. Beautiful ship but a few snags.

[hardspunned]

Here’s the condition of our Navy. Exactly what we needed. Thank you MIC.

https://www.propublica.org/article/how-navy-spent-billions-littoral-combat-ship

[Lonesome in Massachussets]

When I was working at Raytheon, we had a British subcontractor. I got drawn into a meeting with our technical writer and the subcontractors'. The Brits were going to write the U.S. Navy tech manuals. Our guy, whom I had never met before was first rate. The Brits were former Royal Navy electronics techs. In the first place they understood the schematics on inspection. No explaining necessary. They had questions on readability ("10th grade reading level") and our guy gave them tips about using a new computer application called "Word" that would access reading level. (Length of sentences, length of words.) They also asked about the requirement that the language standard was Websters Unabridged Third Collegiate Dictionary. Our guy told them to get any paperback dictionary with the name "Webster" on the cover (about a buck fifty at the time).

[ealgeone]

Wow....that’s a trainwreck of a program if even half of that is true. And I believe it is.

[AppyPappy]

The allies also had air-defense cruisers. When the Germans started using guided bombs, the Brits invented jamming ships.

[KingofZion]

Surely they have bombers that can strike Tehran. None of this will end until we cut off the head of the snake.

[HombreSecreto]

Can any of the Iowa class battleships be put back in service?

[Vermont Lt]

When you are kid, you try to kill ants when you see them. You can stand there all day and kill them as they walk by. You could use a hammer. You could use a big rock.

But unless you find the nest and kill the queen…those ants will keep coming longer than your arm can swing.

We are using sledge hammers to kill ants on the floor.

[ChuckHam]

The UK is another gutter country using the USA to defend themselves. They should be cut loose with the rest of NATO.

[Texas Fossil]

Wonder if one of our Boomers is hovering near their coast?

[DesertRhino]

It is an anti-air ship and has almost no land strike capability unless it wants to give up it’s tubes for a few land missiles. Then it will suck for air defense. And the few missiles (40 or 50) it will carry for land strike will be quickly expended. But it cannot conduct anything like a sustained attack.

And then there is that deck gun. It’s actually smaller than the standard gun on any modern main battle tank.

The Brit navy is far outclassed by the Indian Navy and the Japanese Navy. The Falklands effort would be impossible today.

[ansel12]

One reason for those ratings is that the Marine Corps is rated against one war while the other services are rated against 2 wars capability.

“The score for the Marine Corps was raised to “strong” from “marginal” in the 2022 Index and remains “strong” in the 2024 Index for two reasons: because the Corps’ capacity is measured against a one-war requirement rather than two (to which the other services are held)”

[Churchillspirit]

Bit off subject but strange that is no thread on FR about the US soldiers killed today in Jordan - and another 24 wounded.

[DesertRhino]

And when they load out for ground attack, they lose most of their SAMs. They lose their ability to protect the fleet. And Houthis are smart enough to figure out that’s the time to start firing missiles at them.

Same for the air wing. The best they could do is a 1500 mile each way trip from Cyprus to Yemen in a single seat fighter bomber. They have no more long range bombers and they have no friendly nations closer from which to fly. Not so long ago they would have flown in from Oman right next door.
The Cyprus to Yemen mission would be like taking off in a single seat fighter on Tinian, and conducting the out and back mission to Hiroshima like the B-29 did.
A good stunt, but grossly inefficient and ineffective.

[DesertRhino]

Probably not today. I think they claim the Wisconsin could be, but I doubt it. Clinton sold the 16 inch barrels for scrap and I doubt we could make the powder today.
Also it would be hard to accommodate women aboard. /s

But though people joke about them, modern missiles would have a hard time killing them. They are all designed for today’s thin skinned ships. And they can sit there all day and drop 2000 pounders inside a 20 mile line ashore. In Desert Storm the Battlewagons fired about a thousand of those 2000 pounders.

[Noumenon]

They’re reduced to dropping past-date pasties on them.

[Noumenon]

This reinforces the observation that Britain left the flower of their manhood on the killing fields of WW1 and WWII. Now they’re left with a bunch of cucks, simps and capitulators - much like France.

[hardspunned]

They are more survivable than the Gerald Ford. We can’t stop their hypersonic missiles. At least the Iowa can withstand many more hits before she goes down.

[PGalt]

Thanks for the additional information.

[txroadhawg]

Isn’t the New Jersey going into drydock soon? Texas is coming out of drydock this summer!!