Royal Navy Giving Up Anti-Ship Missiles, Will Rely On Cannons For Naval Combat (telegraph.co.uk)

cold fjord writes: It will soon be a bit more difficult for Britain's Royal Navy to rule the waves as it gives up anti-ship missiles as a result of budget cuts. That will force the Royal Navy to go "old school" and rely upon naval gunfire for ship-to-ship combat. Cannon fire as the primary means of ship-to-ship combat has been largely obsolete since the 1950s following the invention of guided missiles in World War 2. Prior to that, cannon fire had been the primary means of naval combat for hundreds of years. Although the Royal Navy ranged up to 16" guns on battleships, the largest gun currently in active service is a 4.5" gun. That will leave the Royal Navy unable to engage targets beyond approximately 17 miles / 27 km, whereas Harpoon missiles provide an 80 mile / 130 m range. The loss of anti-ship missile capability will begin in 2018 and may last for 10 years for warships, and 2 years for helicopters. The Sun quotes a naval insider who said: "It's like Nelson saying, 'don't worry, I don't need canons, we've got muskets.'" The loss of missile capability heaps more misfortune upon a naval force that recently has seen its available frontline combat force drop to an unprecedented 24 warships.

Comments

Rule the waves?

[110010001000]

When is the last time the British Navy fired an anti-ship missile from a ship? Almost 40 years? Seriously.

Re: Rule the waves?

[amiga3D]

All you need is 4 or 5 years notice to get ready for a shooting war. No problem.

Re:Rule the waves?

[Cederic]

To be fair, the army have the weapons to sink anything in the Channel, let alone the RAF. The Navy are a force projection these days, home waters defence is easily handled through air power.

Re:OK but why bother?

[Dutch Gun]

A military is sort of like an insurance policy. It's a huge waste of money until you actually need it.

Grandstanding

[Dan East]

This is grandstanding to get the British people riled up and get popular opinion to support allocating more money for defense spending. They've set the doomsday date far enough in the future that they have time to let the bureaucrats allocate the money and save the day and keep the missiles on the ships.

Re:Picking up the slack

[DNS-and-BIND]

Wildly over spends? It's to keep the peace and make potential rivals give up before they ever get started. Sure, defense contractors are rapacious sociopaths but damn, if the USA relaxed and slashed defense, other countries would get the idea that they might be actually able to win. Germany started the Great War because they thought they would win. How'd that work out for everyone?

You think peace is expensive, that's nothing on war. A proper war, not the kind of war where you fire a million dollar cruise missile to hit a camel in the butt.