Jump to content


Photo

Tanker War Redux


  • Please log in to reply
454 replies to this topic

#1 DKTanker

DKTanker

    1strdhit

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 25,700 posts

Posted 10 July 2019 - 1947 PM

Since another topic thread has been completely and utterly and despicably hijacked by religious and anti-religious nutters, I thought perhaps we could start a fresh with this latest news.

 

https://www.foxnews....e-official-says

 

 

Five Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps gunboats tried to seize a British oil tanker in the Persian Gulf Wednesday but backed off after a British warship approached, a senior U.S. defense official told Fox News.

The British warship was said to have been less than 5 miles behind the tanker but soon intercepted the Iranian boats and threatened to open fire. A manned U.S. reconnaissance aircraft was above as well, the official said, adding that Iranian forces left without opening fire.

 


  • 0

#2 JasonJ

JasonJ

    nonbiri

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 11,037 posts

Posted 10 July 2019 - 2102 PM

US is considering forming a coalition to escort commerce ships. Japan is consider that idea if it formulates.

TOKYO
Japan will consider options if the United States seeks cooperation in safeguarding commercial shipping in the Middle East following recent attacks on oil tankers in the area, Japanese officials said Wednesday.

Under the bounds of the pacifist Constitution, Japan will likely have only limited options such as providing logistical support under a special law, as was seen in the aftermath of the terror attacks on the United States on Sept. 11, 2001, the officials said.

It is uncertain whether President Donald Trump would turn to Japan for help as Washington has increasingly pointed to threats from Iran. But Trump has said that what he perceives as an "unfair" bilateral security treaty should be changed, while denying he would scrap it.

"We don't know if the United States expects (cooperation from) Japan," a senior Foreign Ministry official said.

Since facing criticism for only extending financial support in the 1990-1991 Gulf War, Japan has been expanding the role that the Self-Defense Forces can play overseas. But the bar is still seen as high for the troops to be sent abroad.

"We have a high hurdle to clear if we try to dispatch the SDF under existing laws," a government official said.

U.S. media reported Tuesday that the United States wants a military coalition to safeguard shipping lanes from Iranian threats off Iran and Yemen after two tankers were attacked.

"We are engaging now with a number of countries to see if we can put together a coalition that would ensure freedom of navigation both in the Strait of Hormuz and the Bab el Mandeb," Marine Gen. Joseph Dunford, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, was quoted as telling reporters.

In the recent escalation of tensions in the Middle East, one of the tankers attacked near the Strait of Hormuz, a key corridor through which major oil exports flow to the world, was operated by a Japanese firm.

Under security legislation enacted in 2015 under Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, Japan can now come to the aid of allies such as the United States even when Japan itself has not been attacked, in what is known as the use of collective self-defense.

The SDF can be dispatched if a situation arises in which an attack on another country threatens Japan's existence.

But Japanese Defense Minister Takeshi Iwaya has already dismissed the idea of sending SDF personnel as the tanker attacks do not satisfy the requirements for Japan to use the right to collective self-defense.

Another option would be to send the SDF on a patrol mission to ensure maritime security as the SDF law allows the defense minister to order an SDF dispatch to protect people's lives and assets, and maintain order.

Turning to a third option, the country's antipiracy legislation is also seen as unfeasible with no evidence so far showing that pirates are behind the tanker attacks.

"If Japan decides to send the SDF, we will need a special law of the sort to enable its dispatch for logistical support such as refueling," another senior official of the Foreign Ministry said.

Following the Sept. 11 terror attacks, Japan enacted an antiterrorism special measures law to engage in a refueling mission in the Indian Ocean.

https://japantoday.c...le-east-threats

As a point of interest, as said in the other thread, there was a Japanese article dated June 22nd about an escorting scenerio.
http://www.tank-net....13#entry1433563
Spoiler

Edited by JasonJ, 10 July 2019 - 2104 PM.

  • 0

#3 Nobu

Nobu

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,026 posts

Posted 10 July 2019 - 2110 PM

The Iranians appear to be bent on retaliation against the UK for their seized tanker. If a target at sea proves too difficult for them to handle, they will undoubtedly turn to lower-hanging fruit in various ways.


  • 0

#4 Mighty_Zuk

Mighty_Zuk

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 487 posts

Posted 11 July 2019 - 0228 AM

Odd. This article says there were 3 gunboats.
https://www.timesofi...tanker-in-gulf/
  • 0

#5 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Just Another Salisbury Tourist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 54,687 posts

Posted 11 July 2019 - 0229 AM

Bit now on the Royal Navy incident here.

https://www.thedrive...iranian-threats

 

https://news.sky.com...threat-11760556

A Royal Navy warship is offering increased protection to a second tanker in the Gulf in an apparent boost to maritime security following a threat from Iran to seize a British vessel, Sky News understands.

HMS Montrose, a Type 23 frigate, is travelling with the British Heritage tanker off the coast of the United Arab Emirates, according to a ship tracking website and a defence source.

 

The warship is not providing an official escort to the Isle of Man-flagged vessel, owned by BP shipping, but it is providing an increased level of monitoring.

British Heritage, which is able to hold more than one million barrels of oil, had earlier in the day been spotted sheltering off the coast of Saudi Arabia.

 

HMS Montrose gave the same assistance to Pacific Voyager, also an Isle of Man-flagged tanker, for a "little way" over the past day before passing on the duty to another ship in the region, a second defence source said.

 

The source did not give the identity of the other ship but it would likely have been the warship of an allied nation also operating in the area.

Britain is expected to reveal details about what seems to be a change in posture towards commercial shipping in the Gulf in the coming days.


  • 0

#6 glenn239

glenn239

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 5,294 posts

Posted 11 July 2019 - 0707 AM

The Iranians appear to be bent on retaliation against the UK for their seized tanker. If a target at sea proves too difficult for them to handle, they will undoubtedly turn to lower-hanging fruit in various ways.

 

They'd be better off ignoring the first incident while equipping their own tankers with infantry.


  • 0

#7 Mighty_Zuk

Mighty_Zuk

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 487 posts

Posted 11 July 2019 - 0759 AM


The Iranians appear to be bent on retaliation against the UK for their seized tanker. If a target at sea proves too difficult for them to handle, they will undoubtedly turn to lower-hanging fruit in various ways.

 
They'd be better off ignoring the first incident while equipping their own tankers with infantry.

That's a solid way to reclassify their ships as combat vessels, thus legitimate military targets.
  • 0

#8 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Just Another Salisbury Tourist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 54,687 posts

Posted 11 July 2019 - 0806 AM

Put infantry on a ship, you are just begging for them to send someone in and bomb it or mine it.  Escorting a ship, and you are just exercising the freedom of navigation, and everyone does that.


  • 0

#9 Tim the Tank Nut

Tim the Tank Nut

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 5,876 posts

Posted 11 July 2019 - 0916 AM

The RN can handle it, right?

There aren't that many British flagged tankers passing through the straits of Hormuz and the escorts can double back once the tankers are out of the danger zone.

Note: the Iranians are willing to act like bandits/pirates in full view of everyone


  • 0

#10 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Just Another Salisbury Tourist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 54,687 posts

Posted 11 July 2019 - 0926 AM

For now, yes. The problem is we dont really have a large fleet anymore, and the ships we have are aging. Its difficult to find the ships to keep pace with all our requirements. I think we have about 8 Type 23's IIRC and we have to keep at least one on station in UK waters to escort the Russians. Assuming another in refit, and it suddenly looks rather tight.

Oh, the 45's are good ships,  but they have issues operating in hot conditions, and they have yet to be rectified. But if we keep a Type 23 on station (helped by the RN having a naval based in Bahrain IIRC), yeah, we can probably manage it. The problem comes when we start looking after everyone else's ships as well, which if this escalates any further I suppose is probably coming.


  • 0

#11 Tim the Tank Nut

Tim the Tank Nut

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 5,876 posts

Posted 11 July 2019 - 0951 AM

I think the Japanese, French, and the US can be counted on to help.

Don't hold your breath on Germany or China "helping out".

 

Honestly, I'd send the carrier no matter how unready.  It's a message that the Iranians can't ignore.

 

Things are looking like  1982 a bit...


  • 0

#12 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Just Another Salisbury Tourist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 54,687 posts

Posted 11 July 2019 - 1006 AM

Well, the Queen developed a bit of a leak the other day, so I think she might be in the body and fender shop for a little while.

https://www.bbc.co.u...pshire-48947455

No biggie though. By comparison Ark Royal was always developing leaks to the point they had to fill her keel full of concrete.

 

Prince of Wales will be ready to do its first shakedown cruise by the end of the year. The RN understandably dont want Queen Elizabeth to go on an operational patrol till 2021, but yes, im beginning to think real life events might interfere with that.

 

I could see the japanese helping, and probably the Australians (they helped in the last Tanker war, including the Kiwi's I think). The rest? Im afraid im not optimistic.


Edited by Stuart Galbraith, 11 July 2019 - 1007 AM.

  • 0

#13 Anixtu

Anixtu

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,088 posts

Posted 11 July 2019 - 1110 AM

There aren't that many British flagged tankers passing through the straits of Hormuz and the escorts can double back once the tankers are out of the danger zone.


The danger zone extends across much of the Persian Gulf and possibly Gulf of Oman, not just the straits of Hormuz. IRGCN have a demonstrated capability to operate at least as far as the median line of the Persian Gulf, I don't know about further but don't see why not.
  • 0

#14 glenn239

glenn239

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 5,294 posts

Posted 11 July 2019 - 1114 AM

 

 

The Iranians appear to be bent on retaliation against the UK for their seized tanker. If a target at sea proves too difficult for them to handle, they will undoubtedly turn to lower-hanging fruit in various ways.

 
They'd be better off ignoring the first incident while equipping their own tankers with infantry.

That's a solid way to reclassify their ships as combat vessels, thus legitimate military targets.

 

 

Bullshit - civilian vessels use security details all the time these days where piracy is an issue.


  • 0

#15 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Just Another Salisbury Tourist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 54,687 posts

Posted 11 July 2019 - 1117 AM

Supposedly this tanker the RN escorted was going to Basra, before (I don't know why but I can guess) they reversed course without picking up oil, and was escorted out the straits. So yes, the problem area appears to be the entire gulf, not just the Straits of Homuz.

Edited by Stuart Galbraith, 11 July 2019 - 1117 AM.

  • 0

#16 Tim the Tank Nut

Tim the Tank Nut

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 5,876 posts

Posted 11 July 2019 - 1127 AM

this is why we have navies.  It's time to use them.

 

However far Iran can reach we can reach further.  Send whatever ships it takes from whatever nations necessary


  • 0

#17 Anixtu

Anixtu

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,088 posts

Posted 11 July 2019 - 1133 AM

At least one - maybe both, I don't remember - of the oil export terminals at Basra is under direct visual observation from an IRGCN observation post. The natural route from SoH to Basra is on the Iranian side of the Gulf.

It would be a shame if we let the Persian Gulf become a no-go area for British(ish) flagged/owned/whatever merchant vessels.
  • 0

#18 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Just Another Salisbury Tourist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 54,687 posts

Posted 11 July 2019 - 1217 PM

Makes you wish we had more ships in reserve. Williamson was looking into keeping some of the Type 23s when the Type 26s arrive. Far chance of that now.
  • 0

#19 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Just Another Salisbury Tourist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 54,687 posts

Posted 11 July 2019 - 1222 PM

F15Es arrive with Dragon Eye.
https://www.thedrive...-eye-radar-pods
  • 0

#20 Nobu

Nobu

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,026 posts

Posted 11 July 2019 - 1313 PM

Japan's relations with Iran remain strong and will factor into any Japanese Navy deployments to the region. Should Japanese warships be sent there, they will be operating independently, as the quality of those same relations will make their operation in subordination to a U.S. naval command structure unlikely.


  • 0