I'm sorry, you are either looking at this way too simply, or cannot see the wood for the trees.
I wwill attempt to lay this out in the easiest way I can...
#1 - UK PLC doesn't have the cash to fit the kit.
YES, we have set's of equipment available, but on T45 - IPMD means that it CAN NOT be installed until the ship goes into a deep maintenance period as the ship has to be altered internally, cable runs & equipment added, etc, etc.(literally torn apart !)
Without the cash to do it, there is no point !
#2 - The RN DO NOT have enough sailors to man their ships.
No manpower means it's cheaper to put ships into 'extended readiness'.
It sound harsh, but those two facts alone, are actually saving money & manpower, as they will be needed to bolster the x2 carriers.
SA
Actually, with all due respect, I fully get and understand both your points, especially the funds and personnel issues - especially in regards to Lancaster (same issues plague the RCN), except your T-45 IPMD reference under #1 which I will deal with after. Yes they don't have the cash - tho they could maybe shuffle some funds from those amounts allocated to the varied 'assertiveness/flavour-of-the-day' programs & useless executive retreats that seem to be endemic in both Canadian and UK defence ministries. (ie. As an example, a few year back a Cdn DND civil servant executive level retreat for mental wellness or some similar nonsense came to light at a time when actual front line capabilities such as TOW/Eryx ATGM & ADATS were being cut to save a few paltry yearly dollars. The dichotomy is just Insane!) Especially since the UK MoD is in full-on Denial in regards to “HMS Dauntless and HMS Lancaster are not mothballed and remain very much part of the fleet.”
And 'Ginge' I fully agree with all 4 of your points.
As to
"T45 - IPMD means that it CAN NOT be installed until the ship goes into a deep maintenance period as the ship has to be altered internally, cable runs & equipment added, etc, etc.(literally torn apart !)."
A post earlier this year by 'Quil or Capture' [
https://quillorcapture.com/2016/01/29/the-t45-awaiting-rescue/ ] is very informative.
"The current scheduled maintenance, one that boat four (Dragon) will emerge from later this year as boat five (Defender) takes its place, will add communications upgrades, among other work. Each T45 will spend around a year in dock during this time.
Additionally, the UK Ministry of Defence stated to this writer recently that they could find no spare Harpoon launchers down the back of the sofa and that HMS’ Defender and Dauntless will just have to go without.
Four other vessels in class, Daring, Diamond, Duncan and Dragon, have been or will be fitted with the missile system taken from the decommissioned T22s during the aforementioned maintenance."
It not only clarifies which ships have or will be fitted with ex-T22 Harpoon launchers: HMS Daring, Diamond, Duncan & Dragon, it notes that the only other T45 still operational (and not laid up like Dauntless) is Defender which is heading into year-long scheduled deep maintenance later this year once Dragon is finished. This would tend to fully address the T45 IPMD issues you noted as
Defender will be ideally placed to receive Lancaster's Harpoon equipment during scheduled deep maintenance. Thus, giving 5 operational T45 equipped with Harpoon.
Does this not sound perfectly logical, funding issue aside?
And in regards to the comment by 'StobieWan', what does the cost for having Lancaster sitting alongside have to do with the above, those noted costs will not change, except for the one-off infusion of funds required to remove the equipment and transfer it to Defender?
Having equipment just sitting there on Lancaster (Harpoon) which will likely never be used again seems like an even bigger waste of money that has already been expended to buy said equipment?
Now if only the First Sea Lord, or somebody with similar clout, could push for some funds reallocation or a one-off infusion from Treasury and maybe release a statement asserting:
'To maximize the utility of existing equipment, from time to time some limited reallocations of existing equipment on Her Majesty's ships will be undertaken from those ships in temporary extended readiness, so as to maximize value to the taxpayer from investments in said equipment',
even if it is a one-time happening
One would hope that somebody with clout in MoD would realize that this makes perfect sense
To not provide the needed funds would do a disservice to the RN!
But hey, I'm just a lowly civilian independent defence writer who has intently followed defence matters over the past 30+ yrs and even managed to do a well received lead-in to an article by Lord Robertson who was then defence minister, plus 2 UK SDR analysis articles at that time (which all received a bravo zulu well done from the UK defence attaché in Canada) in a government circulated Canadian Defence magazine. Yup, I'm a cheeky bugger which is why I tend to disagree with the way Politicians tend to treat the Military as an unwanted non-vote-getting ministry for funds, plus tend to loose respect for senior military officers who seem to cater to said politicians to either advance career or post-career defence industry employment while the best interests of their branch is conveniently set aside.
Therefore, I will defer to those in service as I am probably somehow just not seeing the wood for the trees. Did I miss something blatantly obvious over the years?
