Destroyers will break down if sent to Middle East, admits Royal Navy

[nitpicker]

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/jun/07/destroyers-will-break-down-if-sent-to-middle-east-admits-royal-navy

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/jun/07/destroyers-will-break-down-if-sent-to-middle-east-admits-royal-navy

Destroyers will break down if sent to Middle East, admits Royal Navy


Richard Norton-Taylor
Tuesday 7 June 2016 18.08 BST Last modified on Tuesday 7 June 2016 22.00 BST


The Royal Navy’s fleet of six £1bn destroyers is breaking down because the ships’ engines cannot cope with the warm waters of the Gulf, defence chiefs have admitted. They also told the Commons defence committee on Tuesday that the Type 45 destroyers’ Rolls-Royce WR-21 gas turbines are unable to operate in extreme temperatures and will be fitted with diesel generators. Rolls-Royce executives said engines installed in the Type 45 destroyers had been built as specified – but that the conditions in the Middle East were not “in line with these specs”.
(snip)

The navy wanted 12 ships but ended up with six. The Type 45 has an integrated electric propulsion system that powers everything on board. The ships are vulnerable to “total electric failures”, according to one naval officer in an email. That leaves the ships without propulsion or weapons systems.
(snip)

[Sherman A1]

1. So,

the designers and planners of these ships never anticipated them being deployed to the Middle East? One wonders just who approved this boondoggle?

I think the British Taxpayers should ask for their money back.

[Jerry442]

7. Whoever would have thought that the adversaries...

...would stoop so low as to use their evil warm-water weapon?

[JonathanRackham]

2. Global warming will only reduce their geographical range.

As the oceans warm, less and less places they can be deployed with effectiveness.

Too bad the money wasn't spent on humanitarian ships instead of war ships.

[marble falls]

3. Who's buying their stuff - the Pentagon?

[AwakeAtLast]

4. They saw the F-35

And said "Yeah, we want that but on water!"

[Locrian]

5. profit and inefficiency

It's not about "working" and being smart about it. It's about organizations headed by people who have never really created/designed/worked on anything in their lives. They "manage" it and of course are incentivized by their superiors (and their position/bonus) to value profit above everything. If it doesn't work - blame the lower levels who have to actually work in the dysfunctional corporate pyramid structure.

[Nitram]

6. Wow, great military planning!

There seems to have been a lack of military intelligence involved.

[packman]

8. Congrats - Two oxymorons in a brief post

"Military planning" and "Military intelligence"