Cuts left Royal Navy warship ‘dangerously unarmed’ during Libya operation
FEARS HMS Westminster went to Libya with as few as four missiles
HMS Westminster was sent to the warzone in Libya armed with as few as four missiles, The News can reveal.
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.
Retired naval officer Rear Admiral Chris Parry said it was unthinkable Westminster had so few missiles on board and said ships in the Falklands and the Gulf wars went there fully loaded.
He added: ‘This is yet another example of the incoherence of last year’s Strategic Defence and Security Review. What if the government’s bluff had been called?
‘What would the Ministry of Defence be saying if Westminster had been hit by something? They took a big risk.
‘The government needs to realise there is only a limited amount you can cut the tail before the teeth fall out.’
Portsmouth North MP Penny Mordaunt, who is a naval reservist, said: ‘I’m absolutely convinced and so are other warfare officers I’ve spoken to that Westminster would have been in danger.
‘We’ve hollowed out the capability to a dangerous level.’
The MoD accepted Westminster was short of missiles when she went to Libya and that she was not then replenished at sea. But a spokesman would not confirm or deny claims that the ship had just four missiles in the warzone.
Permanent Under Secretary at the MoD Ursula Brennan said: ‘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?”.
‘That is a judgement our operations people take on a daily basis.’
Email to a friend
Print this page
Looking for...
Featured advertisers
Jobs
Search for a job
Motors
Search for a car
Property
Search for a house
Weather for Portsmouth
Friday 25 May 2012
Today
Sunny
Temperature: 13 C to 25 C
Wind Speed: 22 mph
Wind direction: East
Tomorrow
Sunny
Temperature: 13 C to 23 C
Wind Speed: 24 mph
Wind direction: East
Comments
There are 14 comments to this article
Page 1 of 1
wizard of oz
Tuesday, November 22, 2011 at 10:38 AMWell Trehorn is airwolf right or wrong?....... I suspect he is right.
Airwolf
Tuesday, November 22, 2011 at 09:28 AMwhat facts are these trehorn? Seawolf can only track projectiles travelling over a certain speed and trajectory so useless against the average soviet design rocket. Using capital letters to impress me doesn't work either. Whilst I would agree that ships should always sail with a full weapons compliment what i have issue with is the news saying she sailed with only four due to military cutbacks which to be honest is blatently false. Seawolves were already in the RN inventory before the tories took over and there's nothing in the SDR about disposing of munitions.
wizard of oz
Tuesday, November 22, 2011 at 08:15 AMUK defence spending statistics are available form the website www.ukpublicspending.co.uk....... Some of you need to look at that website before saying they spent this, they spent that....... Most of you wrong.
Trehorn
Monday, November 21, 2011 at 10:13 PMCheck your facts Airwolf. Rockets were fired at HMS LIVERPOOL. Libya always had the potential to launch airbourne attacks on coalition forces. Just because they didn't manage it successfully is no reson to dismiss the fact that WESTMINSTER would have been unable to defend herself in that event. It was only in 1989 that US F14 jets downed 2 libyan air force jets in the gulf of Sidra. With your logic there's no point in equipping our armed forces until something happens and it's too late.
Airwolf
Monday, November 21, 2011 at 09:30 PMisn't seawolf an air defence missile? gaddafi never launched any missile attacks against nato warships, the only attacks came from small patrol craft so seawolf wasn't much use anyway
BaldKev
Monday, November 21, 2011 at 08:37 PMI think some on here need a history lesson. When the Tories were elected in 1979 they set about cutting back the armed forces. Albeit after a substantial pay rise (that we would have received anyway) In 1981 the Knott review decimated the RN and planned to reduce it to an offshore capability and a submarine fleet. This included selling off Invincible to the Australians. The only thing that saved us was the Falklands. Had Galtieri waited 6 months we probably wouldn't have been able to take it back. There were plent of defence reviews in the late 80s and early 90s that slowly chipped away at defence capability, especially after the fall of the Berlin wall. The Army and RN were particular targets as the RAF seemed to protect their assets better. When Labour came to power in '97 their review did leave us short in a number of areas but we still hadn't really changed our defence spending to meet desert requirements. They did however sanction some big projects including 2 large air craft carriers. Tthe fact that the MOD is mismanaged and financially abysmal is only partly the fault of politicians. Neither of the major parties have stood by the armed forces for decades but beyond all shadow of a doubt the idea that the military is better off under the Tories is a complete fallacy. Defence spending has always gone up more under Labour than Conservative governments. Not because they believe in defence more but because the defence industry as a whole is a major employer and normally in Labour constituencies. For the record I am an ex-matelot and also a Pompey boy born and bred going back at least 6 generations. What successive governments have done to the RN and our once fine dockyard is a disgrace All politicians are self serving spongers and don't have to kive with the consequences of their decisions.
Sailor Sam
Monday, November 21, 2011 at 07:58 PMIt was bad enough to send ships to Libya with no air cover, but to send one virtually unarmed is criminal. From the safety of a desk in Whitehall, PUS at the MOD, Ursula Brennan, a career civil servant, apparently thought that it was 'a risk worth taking.' The buck does not stop at her desk though, but across the road at 10 Downing Street.
Tman
Monday, November 21, 2011 at 06:46 PMIt must be true, the News reporter heard it froma bloke down the pub, and he heard from his mate who works on the Gate in the Yard. Probably is true, actually, but what else could you expect from the Tories? Does no-one remember the John Nott and Thatcher double act from 1982?
Rottenborough
Monday, November 21, 2011 at 05:52 PMFar more likely that this was a cock-up rather than a cut-back. The story suggests that there were only four missiles left in the kitty for HMS Westminster. This kind of story ("The NEWS reveals") is not useful and not necessary. The Defence Reporter should be asked to consider the nation's security and the morale of those afloat before issuing his own publicity material.
wizard of oz
Monday, November 21, 2011 at 05:51 PMIts called debt deleveraging, the total level of personal, company, public and bank debt when compared to the annual GDP. It gives a realistic measure of the real indebtednes of a country (not just Government debt), in our case UK plc..... The 492% means that that it would take us nearly five years to pay off our combined debts if we spent every single penny that the economy produced was used to repay our debt.......The USA total level of debt is around 280%.....So milender take the time to look at the facts, before you start shouting about things you seem to have little understanding of......We are economically in worst state of debtedness than any of the G20 nations, including Italy and the the main political parties are frightened to tell us the truth. I wonder why?
MileEnder
Monday, November 21, 2011 at 05:20 PMWiz of oz @3 - what are you talking about, 492% indebtedness!!!! Against what? Worst in the G20!!! Even worse than crises country Italy then?!! The real figures for Government Debt against GDP are for 2010 GDP-1453.62 % debtGDP-52.2 and estimated figures for 2011 1526.5 59.5%. We, as a nation, have never had anywhere near the 492% you quote. The highest was just over 250% back in 1815 when we were fighting the Napoleonic wars.
wizard of oz
Monday, November 21, 2011 at 03:17 PMOf course it is unforgiveable that our armed forces do not have the right equipment and weapons when they enter a combat zone. However we drowning in a sea of debt and their getting bigger by the day, at the last count the level of indebtness is 492%. The worst amongst the G20 nations. Labour got us into this mess and the Conservatives have done to little to stop the rot. We are in a very serious situation we cant afford the weapons to engage in military adventures so lets not get involved in them. We need a drastic restructuring of our economy and public finances, really big cuts in Government expediture across the board is the only answer
StrongUnitedKingdom
Monday, November 21, 2011 at 01:35 PMAll our Forces have been left dangerously understaffed, underresourced and underfunded by years of Labour cuts, followed by the Conservatives slashing it still further after a sham of a Services Defence Strategic Review. Serving personnel and expensive pieces of kit like HMS Westminster are put in unnecessary danger directly due to Conservative cuts. They are personally responsible. Perhaps it is of benefit that Ms Mordaunt managed to join the Naval Reserve a few scant months before the last General Election, but it is hard to see why. The Conservative Party Ms Mordaunt repesents has seen fit to cut our Forces to the bone whilst we are at war in Afghanistan, and whilst David Cameron decided on military intervention in Libya. Portsmouth has lost the Ark Royal and will lose Illustrious when Ocean has been refitted. This is a lose-lose situation for Pompey and the Navy thanks to the Conservatives. Now what exactly is Ms Mordaunt and her governing Party doing about the shocking state of our Forces? Apart from stating the obvious and driving further defence cuts. Do we need to lose a few ships and hundreds of personnel before they put Naval capability before cost cutting? The Conservatives are cutting our defence to fund increased foreign aid, EU contributions and immigration. Is this what you want?
blueshirt
Monday, November 21, 2011 at 01:33 PMSo the permanent undersecretary at the MOD says that to send the ship there so inadequately armed was a "risk worth taking" .........damn sure she would, while she was safe and comfy at the Ministry, after all, she wasn't alongside those at the sharp end actually taking the risk, was she? I wonder if she would have been so glib and self-assured had she actually been in harm's way trying to do a difficult and downright dangerous job without adequate means of defence, ?? It is to the credit of the armed forces that they continually manage to do their thankless and dirty jobs with such skill and professionalism in spite of the government's efforts, rather than because of them..............
Page 1 of 1
Your view
Please sign in to be able to comment on this story.