Posted on 03/21/2008 9:14:24 PM PDT by jhpigott
Oil tankers and other merchant vessels will be assembled into convoys to sail under the protection of warships’ guns.
The plans follow two serious confrontations between Iranian gunboats and British and US naval ships.
Four of our frigates and destroyers are to be sent to the key Strait of Hormuz amid fears that commercial shipping will be targeted next.
The narrow “chokepoint” carrying oil from the Persian Gulf is the most vulnerable area for attacks or suicide rammings.
Three US ships almost opened fire there in January after being “buzzed” by Iranian boats.
Advertisement
The convoy plans have emerged from a huge naval rethink prompted by the kidnap of 15 sailors from HMS Cornwall last year.
A senior Navy source said: “The plan involves lining UK shipping up in convoys and escorting it with a warship at the front and back – and helicopter support above.”
The Iranians are adopting “swarm attack” tactics in which heavily-armed speedboats rush out and surround ships from all sides.
Admirals have predicted a return to the Tanker War of the 1980s Iran-Iraq conflict if the West’s confrontation with Tehran over its nuclear ambitions worsens.
ping
Letter of Marque
Problem solved
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/feb/18/military.foreignpolicy
RAF and navy hardest hit by £4.5bn MoD cuts
· Overstretched armed services facing crisis
· Army chiefs warn Britain fighting on too many fronts
* David Hencke and Richard Norton-Taylor
* The Guardian,
* Monday February 18 2008
Explainer: Defence budget
Tightening the military’s belt
Type 45 destroyers
The original plan was to build 12 vessels. This had already been cut to eight. The navy may only now get six.
Blair, Brown, and the Labour party backbenchers looted the Royal Navy, they now reap what they sow.
It's blasted well taken long enough...
A better tactic would be to sink or destroy any, all and every Iranian boat. In the water, in harbor, near the water, warehoused, wherever they can be found. They want to play hard ball...
Fly some fighters over from time to time and blow hell out of the bastards.
This sounds sooooo familiar...
The British Fleet is two rubber Dingy’s and a Paddleboard.... Yeah I guessthey need help..
Aren’t there several Iranian islands with heavily armed missile sites in the area that need be taken out before we can consider safely traversing those waters should Iran become even more uppity?
I thought I’d read about them awhile back.
Not to worry. If things got serious, the Fifth Fleet would take over and it wouldn’t take them long to de-fang the Iranians.
BOUT THEM CARRIERS!!!
Ships and Submarines
Deployable Battle Force Ships: 280
Ships Underway (away from homeport): 141 ships (50% of total)
On deployment: 99 ships (35% of total)
Attack submarines underway (away from homeport): 27 submarines (50%)
On deployment: 19 submarines (35%)
Ships Underway
Carriers:
USS Kitty Hawk (CVN 63) - Pacific Ocean
USS Nimitz (CVN 68) - East China Sea
USS Theodore Roosevelt (CVN 71) - Atlantic Ocean
USS Abraham Lincoln (CVN 72) - Pacific Ocean
USS Harry S. Truman (CVN 75) - 5th Fleet
USS Ronald Reagan (CVN 76) - Pacific Ocean
Amphibious Warfare Ships:
USS Nassau (LHA 4) - Mediterranean Sea
USS Peleliu (LHA 5) - Pacific Ocean
USS Essex (LHD 2) - East China Sea
Tarawa Expeditionary Strike Group:
USS Tarawa (LHA 1) - 5th Fleet
“Aren’t there several Iranian islands with heavily armed missile sites in the area that need be taken out before we can consider safely traversing those waters should Iran become even more uppity?”
Yes, you’re correct. That’s the main reason for the convoys, although the Iranian gunboats can play havoc with unescorted merchant shipping at night. The Iranians had Chinese Silkworm missiles then. Low flyers with a 1000 lb warhead. I believe that one was fired at an Israeli warship when they battled Hamas / Syria last year, if so, it was probably sent to Syria by the Iranians.
If I had to define the perfect target for a burrowing tac-nuke, those islands would be it.
the same new labour that has sent our forces into Iraq and Afghanistan?
Or did you think that they were different?
Well, Iraq has to eventually be handed back. We have done very well to stick in for 5 years with the troops contributions that we have made. Our 4,000 are still the third highest contribution to the war (after the US military and the Private Security firms like Blackwater and Aegis). It is clear that Iran has had a great deal of influence in the South, something that was inevitable with the Shia movement proving more attractive to the many locals than making a united Iraq. Mistakes were made, but then I dont think any of us can stay blameless in that regard.
As for Afghanistan, I will object strongly.
“on Afghanistan the areas under their control are using the softly softly approach which allows the Taliban to still keep control over the locals.”
This is ignorance bordering on stupidity on your part. I’m not sure what news is carried over in the US, but its clearly not doing the UK justice. Just check out any number of youtube videos of our troops in action in 2006, 07 and 08. Look up Ross Kemps brilliant expose in his documentary alongside British troops in Helmand province. Look at the Operation Herrick article on Wikipedia to see a thorough analysis of our operations, troop strength and casualties (91 now).
A softly softly approach needs berets worn instead of combat helmets. If possible it should be conducted on foot and without heavy armour. As well as critical reconstruction work performed in places like Gereshk and Sangin, our forces have been involved in heavy fighting in the Upper Helmand valley, where a de-facto ‘front line’ has formed, such is the scale of the combat. Patrols go out every single day and are fighting fierce contacts every time they do. Our third in line to the throne, Prince Harry, served 2/3rds of a tour at JTAC hill, which saw heavy attacks in the early part of 08. Our next roulement sees the Parachute Regiment replacing the RM Commandos for the summer months. These are fighting regiments, and will act as such.
Other equipment includes Warrior AFV’s, AS-90’s, MLRS systems, 4 Harrier ground attack squadrons, Apache gunships etc....
You get the drift, if you value being right when talking about a topic, you’ll check out the info available and see that our commitment to Afghanistan is huge. Not to mention that its in such a spit state because of the lack of forces the US put in Helmand after the war in 2001. I read it was little more than a battalion. Little wonder the Brits have been fighting hard for every inch of ground, and this is will 8,000!
I won’t get in a flame war with you nor will I call you stupid because you disagree with me ,you have pride in your country and your national forces and again I wouldn’t trade the British fighting man for anything.I still believe that Gordon Brown is the beginning of the anti-American left who wants to be an appeasing weak kneed socialist who won’t defend against the Muslim threat overseas and will gave in to Muslim demands at home .I sure wish that I could get welfare payments for my 4 wives and I’m so happy that all the toilets HM’s prison can’t face Mecca and don’t you dare have piggy bank on your desk at work for fear of giving offence.I guess when the Muslim got a lesser punishment for excessive speeding because he was commuting between 2 wives doesn’t mean that you are surrendering your British culture in the name of multiculturalism .I think as I see what’s going on over there I have a great doubt as to where Gordon Brown and new Labor are taking your nation ,of course what you have over there is a preview of coming attractions over here if my countrymen are stupid enough to vote in the Democrats who are our version of Labor.
All I ask is you have a look into the British role in Afghanistan and recognise it for what it is; a war fighting force, doing the dirty work when very few nations (notable exceptions aside) are willing to stand up. To characterise our approach as softly-softly is a severe disservice to our personnel who would disagree with you as fast as I did. Not to mention those who haven’t made it back, or those that have, just not intact.
I was calling you ignorant and stupid vis a vis Afghanistan because thats exactly the traits you exhibited in your previous post. Someone might read your post and take it at face value, and your ignorance would have spread. Its a massive insult to our war effort to suggest otherwise, but then, such comments are two to a penny here on FR, so I try to take it in my stride.
As for the other stuff. Brown this. New Labour that. Muslim this. Welfare that. Socialist this. Anti-American that. Its way too boring to respond to in depth. Suffice to say that much of what your read is hyperbole, interpretation, and lies, with a smattering of fact.
As for New Labour mate, they are the most Centrist party the UK has ever had in power. They ditched a great deal of the old socialist manifesto when they came to power, knowing full well that the UK wouldn’t stand for that again. They have had ten years of continual economic growth, and led us into 2 wars to fight by your side. Hardly socialist, hardly anti-American. Believe the facts, or keep your head stuck in the sand, its up to you.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.