The Portsmouth News has reported that HMS Westminster was only carrying 4 Sea Wolf missiles when conducting operations off Libya, or enough for two shots against an airborne threat, missile or aircraft for example.
Concerned Royal Navy officers have revealed the Portsmouth-based frigate was ‘dangerously under-defended’ when she was called to patrol close to the Libyan port city of Benghazi in March.
The warship can carry 32 Seawolf and eight Harpoon missiles. But it is understood military cutbacks left Westminster’s 190 sailors desperately short if they had come under attack off Libya.
It comes after The News revealed the stretched navy was unable to spare a warship to guard British waters for the whole of October following last year’s defence cuts.
As Seawolf missiles are fired in pairs, sources say Westminster had just two rounds to respond to missile attack from Colonel Gaddafi’s troops.
The MoD responded
The assessment of the risk to HMS Westminster would have taken in to account the other capabilities that we had in terms of submarines, aircraft and surveillance and so on and said “in those circumstances, do we think that is a risk worth taking?
A risk worth taking apparently
It is obvious that we have more Sea Wolf missiles and it is equally obvious that there is always a risk balancing act to consider.
Missiles have a finite service life and taking them to sea impact on that service life, the risks of sea skimming missiles and air attack were minimal and there is nothing unusual in having differing war loads that reflect threat levels but we should always ask if this is tail wagging the dog, cost driving decisions on risk.
If it is as a result of wanting to keep costs to a minimum is this kind of under the surface cost cutting a result of clinging to large capital projects that provide the illusion of capability but in reality lead to the fur coat and knicker situation.
Group think, risk assessments and internally justifying yet another one of those thousand paper cuts to capabilities has attendant risk.
Hollowing out real capabilities in order to maintain those big hitters is a fools errand.
The UK Armed Forces trade on their hard won reputation and make no mistake, reputation or perception is a potent weapon.
As soon as that starts to fade, any job becomes harder.
Its not ideal, but whats the problem really?
We judged, rightly, that Libya didnt have anything to throw at the ship.
I’f prefer every ship/tank/fighter/soldier to carry a full war load at all times, but it all needs paying for.
This is so shocking that it beggars belief. Can you imagine if the ship had been attacked or sunk and this information emerged?
What most shocks me about this is the fact that we obviously have stocks of Seawolf missiles stored somewhere. Why could we not store a reasonable number of missiles on board H.M.S. Westminster, just in case? If we had no missiles to give her, that is even worse.
We really do need to prioritise our military commitments and ensure we are adequately resourced to fulfil each. If we can’t fulfil a role adequately or expose our soldiers, sailors and airmen to unnecessary risks, sooner or later we’re going to get caught out.
Dom we agree!
She was doing an OPVs job. An OPV wouldn’t necessarily have SAMs and nobody has batted an eye lid at the other second rate vessels that cut around with no SAMs from IT or FR. The scandal is having an expensive first rate doing a sloops job. The Navy is unbalanced.
No excuses for this. I assume the missiles are just flat out not available: we effectively have nothing even in the shop window. Ranting on about cost is nonsense, we’ve cut the numbers of ships again and again…still not enough missiles? I know VL Seawolf is unique to the T23′s…
tish, everyone knows the rules you get to press the button to fire expensive pointy whoosh stuff if it’s your birthday. Obviously they checked the p files before leaving, 4 birthdays = 4 missiles, i know this to be true coz my mate heard the cleaning lady from the QM’s say it.
“No excuses for this.”
“I assume”
See the problem?
rupert.
Missiles can only spend so many hours in the vls before they need to go back to the manufacturer for a rebuild/service.
Thats expensive (i assume)
This is an argument for installing a CIWS on the T23s perhaps…
Was the Westminster supposed to be protecting anything? 4/32 missiles is some way short of ‘a full war load’. I find it hard to believe that the reward of not taking a few more missiles really outweighs the risk of missile or launcher failure. What would have happened if she had used a couple? Back to Blighty with her tail between her legs?
Phil – we dont agree ! How unusual….
How was the Westminster doing an OPV’s job exactly ?
Various ships were fired on from the shore during the Libyan affair, if we could not get intel on WMD right, how could we be absolutely sure there was not shore fired ASHM threat ? Freak raid by 2 low flying Mig 23′s ???
Really though, a VL SeaWolf is a “round of ammunition” there is no difference between this and when someone wanted to send my units convoy into Iraq with 10 rounds each !
Bad planning, and if our budgets are so bad that ships deploy without ammo because of the maintenance costs (and Dom that is a very, very long time on the shelf / in the silo before going back to BAe !) then we really have slipped from the sublime into the ridiculous.
“How was the Westminster doing an OPV’s job exactly ?”
I understand she was operating nowhere near shore, way out past the littoral.
Or Jed, that we shouldn’t have been there at all… I’m all for taking educated risks, but this does seem like we were playing at the roulette table…
Phil. I would also like to understand why this was an OPV role?
Enforcing a blockade. I don’t believe she went on any gun runs or got close to shore. The US had a vessel operating with no missiles in the Med too, USS Halyburton.
Where’s the fuss over her?
There were several other second rate vessels from other NATO navies operating as part of the blockade too.
If there was no missiles to go on her, that’s a national scandal or parliamentary proportions, but if a first rate was simply doing a second rate’s tasking because there was sod all in the Navy to otherwise do it, then that’s not the same thing.
HMS Westminsters tasking as on the mods own website 23 march this year
http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/DefenceNews/MilitaryOperations/HmsWestminsterSupportsLibyaOperations.htm
While the boarding operations ect may not have be a “first rater” you can argue this if you like but her operations relied on a powerful package of sensors to be preformed and c&c which in my view is why it was important this was a first rate frigate.
As to war load I can see both arguments here but with the reduced fleet and the other capability gaps taken I hope the risk planners at mod are better than the risk planners at nothern rock.
I think the story is a classic Daily Mail coup and on the face of it creates a massive shit storm and a flurry of “this is too good to miss” opportunist shit slinging. There is a deeper story here. We’ll probably never know it unless there really were not enough missiles. The ship was not doing gun runs, I don’t believe she was operating very close to shore, she was part of a larger task force and was arguably doing a job a second rate vessel with a helicopter could do. The US also had a vessel with no SAM launcher in theatre, and FR and IT both had second rate vessels plying the blockade as well. And I don’t think she spent more than a month on task either. I’m sure she left in March and was home beginning of April. (checked dates, in Portsmouth taking on supplies on 04 March and home on 8 April).
It sounds bad, but I’d be surprised if it really was as bad as the shit stirrers would have you think.
paul g “counts the times i’ve shouted at the paper for getting story wrong for a sensational headline” runs out of fingers and toes!! soldiers on frontline sacked, err no it was the LSL who weren’t getting another extension and then at least they had 12 months to sort their shit out.
My personnal favourite, some shitty sunday rag putting a warehouse full of coffins on the front page, saying MOD stocking up for GW2, not only a load of bollocks but when you’ve gone home to see your mum before deploying and she’s sitting there crying looking at the photo, you see the hurt bollocks like this causes.
As phil says it’s a non story purely to stir the shit and sell papers
I don’t care if Westminster was shuffling grannies to Bognor Regis. The attitude that, “don’t worry, we’ll have x months/years to regenerate” is nonsense, and if it really were true, we wouldn’t need an RN, just an RNR. The Falklands, GW1 were either entirely or partly come as you are parties, with the former having surface warships deploying direct from Springtrain, and given the paltry commons we are operating on these days, even a proto terrorist attack in the Channel could have a devastating effect on the order of battle. If you are out of port, you are properly armed: that’s the end of it
Is it not beyond the wit of engineering to design a storage module for these missiles so that they don’t degrade and need extensive servicing, but could be held in the hold of an RFA? Then if needed for resupply the missiles are no more than 24 hours away.
Forgive me if that is an ignorant question, I have no idea how naval resupply is done in practice, apart from watching a demo of RAS from the deck of Illustrious when on an inter-service visit. Thankfully I managed to avoid the selector’s eye for the breeches bouy demo
jed
my ‘apaches in afghanistan’ books gave the impression it was a constant worry.
This is the new think now in many of the military. That somehow we will have some kind of warning before the next war. In another forum they were talking about converting industries that make washing machines into making tanks. Stunning how few have any idea how long it takes not just to get those kind of things started but to produce something once they do start. Sending a ship out on patrol with so few weapons is fine as long as no one starts shooting. But how well have we predicted wars in the past. It is only a matter of time before someone pays with their life.
Commander Tim Green: “We are now guarding the maritime flank” “We are ready for combat … at immediate notice.”
Aside from small boats, Gaddafi’s navy remained in port once the allied naval patrols had begun. As the MoD put it in July, HMS Westminster deterred Gaddafi’s navy “by providing a threatening presence”.
Fully armed or not, how much more likely will the next opponent be, to try its luck and call the bluff of the Royal Navy?
DomJ – the problem of extrapolating from a book about he Los in the sandpit eh? If it was talking about Brimstone (?) You should not jump to the conclusion all missile systems are the same. A VL Seawolf is sealed in its launch canister, it does require periodic maintenance.
James – I don’t think its SOP to reload T23 VLS suite at sea, more of an RTB evolution.
Phil – two wrongs don’t make a right. USS Halyburton, and old FFG 7, has no medium calibre gun, only an OTO 76mm Super Rapid – suitable for air defence but not NGS, she does however have a Phalanx CIWS. So unlike HMS Westminster with her 114mm, HalyB did not provide the flexibility to go close inshore if required. However perhaps if we dig deeper we will find she was not carrying any rounds for her main gun either
Damn it, why does the editor not work anymore?
That should have been helos and “does not require routine maintenance”
You have to take this with a pincho-o-salt really… a mix of reaction here, in the end the threats were assessed, aircover was there, by then a lot of the serious stuff capable of hurting her was destroyed/removed…the MoD/RN arent so stupid to send a entire ship to danger without properly thinking through…remember that, another ‘Falklands scene’ would harm the RN more than anything else….
Though TD does get that lil seed of doubt, if it was cost… what else are we seeing as ‘good/fit for purpose’ is actually only just a facade? Like the T45′s missile complement/capability? Doesnt help.
Also remember, even when stored; a missile degrades, at sea it must be a fair task to keep them ready.
Hi, Mike. Gaddafi still had serviceable corvettes months after Westminster arrived on scene. Vessels which may have carried anti-ship missiles and which could have put to sea – not many vessels, and not the latest and best, but still a potential risk to under-defended ships. I don’t know whether he had any air-launched ASu capability, but maybe so.
As it turned out, the Libyan Navy didn’t venture out of port again, and the allies’ fleet don’t seem to have been threatened by closing Libyan aircraft, but I don’t see how we could have ruled out a concerted effort to attack an allied warship at the time.
Maybe that explains the RAF bombing the vessels in port?
Lieutenant Commander Nick Wood (HMS Westminster) speaking in July: “At very short notice we sailed from the UK and quickly arrived off the Libyan coast into a dynamic and hostile environment”
Much has been made of the threats faced by our forces since the beginning of the operation. Odd to back-track and play down the dangers only when our lack of preparedness comes to light. The threat now is not from Libya, but from country-X in the next operation, that believes the RN invites attack by entering a hostile zone without adequate protection.
Jed
It was hellfires, apparently pilots never really got the hang of fireing the missile that was closest to needing to be flown back to the UK.
Or the same anecdote showed up in three books.
“Missiles have a finite service life and taking them to sea impact on that service life,”
I was simply extrapolating form that.
VLSs are sealed units, but it still cant be healthy for them to be rolled around on a rough sea?
Or maybe not.
@ DomJ
Oddly enough sea going missiles (and cells) are designed with the sea in mind. Consider also the violent manoeuvres a missile like SeaWolf goes through in flight and the movements of a ship in a heavy sea; the former is a lot more violent than the latter. Current batch of SeaWolf missiles are completely solid state (even the gyros) so there isn’t much that (in theory) can break. If the movement of the ship affected electronics to such a degree other systems in the ship would be constantly at risk. Still anything electronic can be potentially temperamental however well screwed together. And saying that going to sea with 4 missiles (2 salvoes) doesn’t allow for much of a margin of safety. What I want to know who decided on 4? Did they pull the number out of a hat? Why not 8 or 12?
This is the usual MOD bulls**t. We don’t have enough money to buy missles or bullets etc. Its just like the story of officers in Afghanistan not having 9mm ammo. Is it really a budget issue. No its more down to incompetance than anything else. £40 billion a year can buy allot of kit if its spent well. Obviously the RN has stocks of Sea Wolf and the Army has stocks of 9mm. If they choose not to take them or forget them its suerly an operational matter and not something to be leaked to the press over and over again.
Would that be weapons grade bull sh*t?
I have asked some kvestions via an FoI request. We shall see how they wriggle out of it. They’re carefully worded.
I really think assuming that we’ve no missiles is a tedious knee jerk reaction better suited to the Daily Mail comment section. Nobody here knows why she carried 4 SW. One of my questions was if her Captain was over ruled on load out or protested it. Don’t need to know what was said, the mere presence of an imposed load out would be scandalous. But as I said, I expect the real story isn’t half as exciting
I remember one young lecturer getting very excited over that incident where TLAM-N were flown across the US by mistake. She wasn’t too happy when I said yes it was a cock-up but weapons are just “very dangerous” stores and though bombs and ammunition etc. may sound dangerous etc. to her they are just another item on some loggie’s or armourer’s chit. I told her that last time I was in HMNB Portsmouth I sat and ate my lunch on a crate with a minigun inside it which was sitting next to a pile of other sundry stores waiting to go aboard the T42 I was visiting. She wasn’t too happy either when I said that the US didn’t really loose their nuclear weapons unlike the Soviets.
obviously she needs to go on a arms course! unless your minigun was loaded had one up the spout with the safety off you could’ve tap danced on the crate. Sheesh!!
A mate in the FOB used to sleep cuddling a LASM.
Phil
thats, not at all serial killery
X
As I said, I was aware of the same problem in air launched weapons, so assumed the same in sea launched, and no doubt ground launched, although with decreaing amounts of “bother”.
@ DomJ
I was agreeing with you in a roundabout way.
@PaulG
Her doctorate was in Security Studies; I doubt she would know the difference between an SA80 and the aft-end of T23 if they weren’t labelled. SS is a very broad subject these days.
peace studies is my particular favourite.
Its actualy worse than it sounds
That’s Bradford if I recall. That’s bad enough. I suspect though, if you attend the course with a critical mind it would be interesting and enlightening. Despite what others here accuse me of I am a fan of critical thinking and opening my mind.
“Oddly enough sea going missiles (and cells) are designed with the sea in mind. Consider also the violent manoeuvres a missile like SeaWolf goes through in flight and the movements of a ship in a heavy sea; the former is a lot more violent than the latter. Current batch of SeaWolf missiles are completely solid state (even the gyros) so there isn’t much that (in theory) can break. If the movement of the ship affected electronics to such a degree other systems in the ship would be constantly at risk. Still anything electronic can be potentially temperamental however well screwed together. And saying that going to sea with 4 missiles (2 salvoes) doesn’t allow for much of a margin of safety. What I want to know who decided on 4? Did they pull the number out of a hat? Why not 8 or 12?”
The issue with missile life is not so much with the electronics, normally, but with the rocket propelling them.
I can make an example, about the only weapon i have accurate data for: the Marte anti-ship missile, italian rival of the Sea Skua, to make it easy.
It comes in two main production variants: fueled and sealed, with a life of 15 years in storage and with N hours of flying; or empty, with the fuel being poured inside it prior to use for the mission.
Now there is all this loud noise about Sea Wolf, but what about Harpoons?
Frigates have been sent around without Harpoons on board quite frequently in the last few years.
And Westminster totally missed those as well.
For both weapons, it might be a case of weapons stock running close to the end of their life.
Does Westminster use the old Sea Wolf, or is she one of the three already upgraded for the latest variant…? Can’t remember.
If she still uses the old ones, it might be a real shortage, with them being assigned with a bit of reluctance as the remaining ones are close to their end.
But i’m pretty the solution is simple: if i’m not mistaken, HMS Westminster had only recently completed sea trials, and was docked on the Thames in London for a five days visit prior to being urgently sent to Libya since it was necessary to replace HMS York in there, as York itself was urgently removed from its task (it was heading for the Falklands) and sent into the Med instead, gapping for some time the South Atlantic patrol commitment.
In this article there’s even a photo of her in Gibraltar taking up stores… and if you look at the missile silo, there does seem to be only 4 loaded cells indeed. The lack of Harpoons is also evident.
http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/news/local/east-hampshire/hms_westminster_to_take_over_libyan_duties_from_hms_york_1_2472788
Simply, i’m guessing that it was down to wanting to send her urgently on the way. It was not judged necessary to load her up with weaponry before sending her forth.
The visit in London, and her being just out of sea trials post refit would kind of justify her condition of disarmament.
There’s many possible explanations. I’m just making my guess.
Of course, it remains questionable to send a warship pretty much unarmed into a war, and even ask her to enter a port, a potentially very dangerous maneuver if an attack was to come in the right moment…
But i do not think it is down to a lack of missiles.
More down to a lack of warships, as to cover the Libya needs the RN had to re-route and re-task a lot of vessels, and keep a Type 22 going much longer than planned. But this is nothing new.
@ Gabby
I did notice the absence of Harpoon.
How do you pour solid fuel?
@ DomJ
I see your Peace Studies and raise you one 3,500 word essay on the Copenhagen School.
@ Gabby.
Westminster was upgraded in 2009 to the latest spec.
Stealing some figures from another forum; 2,106 seawolf produced, 1782 vertical seawolf and 437 sea wolf block 2 were built or in production by the end of 2010.
http://warships1discussionboards.yuku.com/topic/18592/Libya-warship-had-just-four-missiles?page=3#.Ts6RGbKIm0s
The lack of Harpoons isn’t really an issue is it, rules of engagement mean that it is such a restricted weapon these days and there are many better systems available across the force that was deployed if we wanted to destroy Libyan shipping, like Paveway IV delivered by the RAF for example.
Self defence is another matter though.
I don’t expect we will ever get to the bottom of the reasons why though
@ TD
No Harpoon is of limited use, but its absence points to how Their Lordships are thinking.
I wonder how many rounds of 4.5inch were aboard?
I wouldn’t be surprised if the Harpoon cells were not almost always empty on all ships in almost all deployments – perhaps the South Atlantic task has them but they seem to be going out of fashion across the board.
The Flight IIA Arleigh Burke’s don’t bother with them and they are supposed to be general destroyer vessels.
The USN have considered Harpoon a “second battery” weapon for over a decade or so. The Standard missile does have an anti-surface capability.
Surely the point is that this illustrates that the ships are routinely operated with such low weapons stocks! This is evident that this is routine because it was diverted to Libya without being updated / replenished, this must be due to cost saving. They are obviously not fitting the missiles to save on maintenance.
The serious fact is they did not upscale the ship to be suitable for operations! This is inexcusable and the bollox about low air threat is mod bullshit!
The same bull that tried to justify that the Snatch Landrovers were just what was needed due to their size and mobility. Not the truth that they were unarmoured death traps!
As BB said the other worrying aspect is the fact that this now sends a signal to all future adversaries that we are fur coat and no knickers. So they might just call our bluff.
“Surely the point is that this illustrates that the ships are routinely operated with such low weapons stocks!”
An assumption. WSTR was on a home water tasking when she was diverted, she wasn’t even FRE. I understand she was on some sort of ponce around the UK cruise.
“This is inexcusable and the bollox about low air threat is mod bullshit!”
Again I think the opinion of the Captain would be interesting. Either the Captain was happy, or the Navy doesn’t listen to its Captains anymore.
“Not the truth that they were unarmoured death traps!”
They were all anyone had at the time with armour and that level of mobility.
“This must be due to cost saving. They are obviously not fitting the missiles to save on maintenance.”
That’s quite a jump there mate.
“So they might just call our bluff.”
I’m quite sure they’d get a bloody big shock.