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.

[mac_truck]

Hail Brittannia...

[BobL]

Take that, Iran!!!! We in the West don’t need no weapons on our warships because WE ARE NATO, and therefore WE ARE INVINCIBLE!

[linMcHlp]

HMS Diamond - anti-air, air defense, guided missile destroyer

- - -

All of the British Royal Navy destroyers can launch:

- AGM-84E Standoff Land Attack Missile (SLAM)

- AGM-84H/K SLAM-ER (SLAM - Expanded Response)

IF THEY HAVE THE MISSILES

[hal ogen]

LOL...and to think they used to “rule the seas”. Pathetic woke country.

[grey_whiskers]

As Rocky and Bullwinkle said, “Rue Brittania”

[oldbill]

NATO, the paper tiger.
Little wonder why Putin is eyeing the Baltic states, Turkey (via Islamist allies), Finland, etc.

Only a future Trump administration stands in his way.

[Leaning Right]

The UK should quit fooling around, and give the Houthis a full broadside from the HMS Victory. That would be 50 roaring cannon! And from the looks of it, Victory is almost ready to go. She just needs a few sails installed.

[PGalt]

Mental and physical firepower is needed to overcome a proxy of Islam.

[libertylover]

I thought the Blokes had at least one aircraft carrier. Where is it?

[Leaning Right]

The UK has two aircraft carriers, HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales. Both are evidently sitting at anchor in Portsmouth.

I read an article recently saying that the ships cannot be moved due to crew shortages. I don’t know how true that is.

[Carriage Hill]

Floating targets.

[Worldtraveler once upon a time]

Adding some flesh to the skeleton of this story:

"The warship left from Portsmouth Naval Base on Saturday before an 'emerging mechanical issue' occurred while it was off the south-east coast of the Isle of Wight. The departure of the Nato flagship had already been delayed from Friday because of a technical problem, although it is not known if the incidents are related."

Source: Royal Navy chief: Breakdown of £3billion aircraft carrier HMS Prince of Wales is ‘very disappointing’ Standard, UK, 31 August 2022

"It was a mechanical error measured in millimeters that caused the UK’s newest and largest aircraft carrier to cease operations and now requires an estimated $31 million fix. As for who’s paying, the Ministry of Defence said it doesn’t know yet. Responding to a parliamentary question this week, Ben Wallace, UK secretary of defense, said that his department continues “examining the liabilities and who should cough up” for a 33-tonne (36.4-ton) starboard propeller shaft fault which forced the Prince of Wales, the second Royal Navy Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carrier, to break down in August 2022, just one day after departing its home base of Portsmouth, England, for training exercises in the US."

Source: Millimeters cost millions: UK still to decide who ‘should cough up’ for $31M aircraft carrier repair bill Breaking Defense, 17 May 2023

"If there is a serious issue with the carrier, it would be another blow to the Royal Navy and to the ruling Conservative government, which came under fire for the slow progress and high costs for the repairs of HMS Prince of Wales. Her return to service was further delayed due to the availability of parts – a fact that highlighted troubles the Royal Navy could face in a major crisis."

Source: Does the Royal Navy Have a Serious Problem With its Aircraft Carriers? MSN, 1 November 2023

"The next criticism of the Royal Navy’s carriers is that they were staggeringly, unbelievably expensive. British Army officers in particular have a deeply entrenched belief that our carriers are the reason for the Ministry of Defence’s ongoing budgetary 'black hole', a problem which has dogged it for 25 years and shows no sign of going away. The two ships started costing money in the late noughties, well after the black hole appeared, and total acquisition cost was a bit over £6bn depending what figure you choose. That’s a lot of money, but it’s not a lot of money for an MoD equipment project.

Source: We need to talk about aircraft carriers Telegraph, UK, 16 January 2024

When one rattles those sabers, one surely needs to have sabers upon which to rely.

[mac_truck]

Floating targets.

British naval defenses are good enough, but they lack offensive capabilities. Its been a long standing unresolved problem and I'd laugh if it cost them the Falklands

[hardspunned]

The era of gunboat diplomacy is over. When a bunch of rag tag irregulars, shooting off an occasional $20,000 missile, can humiliate our trillion dollar obsolete Navy, it’s time reconsider what our MIC has stuck us with. You know, someone actually saw a possibility of this type of littoral confrontation. Maybe the MIC should design a “littoral” ship. Nothing but idiots and traitors left at the Pentagon.

[MeganC]

Some of this issue is rooted in British military priorites. Their navy has never been seen as supporting their army. And being an island nation the navy is their focus. This reality is emphasized since the Brits gave up their empire.

Rather the opposite of Russia which for practical reasons focuses on their army and it’s their navy that comes in second. This reality is emphasized since the Russians gave up their empire.

[logi_cal869]

Wow.

[Lonesome in Massachussets]

Even in World War II, destroyers were mainly intended as screening vessels, to chase off submarines, and provide air defense support. Warships are primarily intended to defeat threats to warships. The Royal Navy is a blue water navy. We are lucky to have them on our side.

[mware]

Saw a report from Hertiage that claims the only strong service in US military are the Marines, Army is listed as marginal, Navy as weak, Air Force as very weak. Seems same thing is happening with UK.

[BobL]

“Nothing but idiots and traitors left at the Pentagon.”

That is why SOME OF US HERE object to this bunch starting a world war, given our hollowed-out military*. In addition to the Houthis, Iranian proxies also landed a missile on a deserted part of one of our Iraqi military bases, just to show us that they can defeat our Patriots, which they did in that case.

*and, no, the condition of our military is NOT a secret to our enemies, and no, putting our heads in the sand regarding the relative strength of our enemies, will not make it all go away and set the clock back 30 years.

[BobL]

“The Royal Navy is a blue water navy. We are lucky to have them on our side.”

I think you meant that “we were” lucky to have the UK on our side, as I don’t think there’s much left of it now (as they’re likely to soon learn in the South Atlantic).