Jump to content


Photo

Tanker War Redux


  • Please log in to reply
473 replies to this topic

#61 Mighty_Zuk

Mighty_Zuk

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 491 posts

Posted 16 July 2019 - 1726 PM

An interesting gambit by Tehran would be to invite the Japanese Navy to the gulf as a show of both force and flag for de-escalatory global good, and to act as a layer between the rawness of tensions between Iran and the United States.
 
A single warship bearing the naval ensign of Japan on patrol in the gulf would be a beacon to all parties in various ways.
 
Unfortunately you're assuming the point is to get hulls cheaply, efficiently and quickly to the war fighters should the need ever arise.

That has very little to do with what the military industrial complex is for.  Perpetual low rate production secures jobs and skillsets and greases the money just fine.

 
Absolutely, with the economic hit being mitigated by sales to those nations that are unable or unwilling to master the economic possibilities.


Good idea in theory, but it misses the fact that some of these waters are disputed.
  • 0

#62 Chris Werb

Chris Werb

    In Zod We Trust

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 11,008 posts

Posted 17 July 2019 - 0131 AM

What about if you lose 3 or 4 ships, as we did during the Falkland's campaign, and you lack the industrial capability to make good on them inside of 5 years? I seem to recall it took long enough to built a replacement for Sheffield.


Given our tiny force structure, the loss of three or four ships would be pretty catastrophic. The government of the day would fall and there would be no appetite for getting into the kind of situation where that kind of disaster could happen again for decades. It could well force a rethink of the inherent vulnerability of surface ships and the way we fight, or better still avoid fighting wars.
  • 0

#63 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Just Another Salisbury Tourist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 55,747 posts

Posted 17 July 2019 - 0149 AM

Chris, we lost 6 ships in the falklands. Did it stop us going to sea? No. And personally, I dont think the size of force matters.If you have a requirement for a force at sea, you are going to keep doing it. Losses just underline how important is is you retain the capability, because there is clearly a threat to shipping.

 

Once gain, you still think its possible to avoid all wars. Sometimes they sail right into you, despite any efforts to avoid them. When I about 6 years old, my father showed me a plate at Heston service's on the M4, showing where Neville Chamberlains airliner stopped and he got out waving a piece of paper promising peace in our time.

 

You might say, its left an indelible impression about unavoidable some wars are.


  • 0

#64 Chris Werb

Chris Werb

    In Zod We Trust

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 11,008 posts

Posted 17 July 2019 - 1800 PM

Stuart, it's not 1982, We had LOADS of escorts back then (something like 48 frigates and 13 FF/DDGs) and a bunch more (Tribals for example) in reserve. The reason was we had to maintain those numbers to escort convoys across the Pond. This was preparing for existential warfare stuff - we don't face an existential threat now. If you extrapolate from the 19 or so total escorts we have now from 61 back then, losing four now would be the equivalent of losing approximately 12 destroyers/frigates in 1982. Had that happened NO WAY would we have retaken the Falklands, and the Thatcher government would have fallen.  You wouldn't have seen people (other than nutters) clamouring to build a bigger better fleet to have another go.

 

No, I do not think it is possible to avoid all wars. I just think it's idiotic to go out actively looking for them - particularly against giant, technologically advanced, unscrupulous enemies at the other side of the planet. If we are going to deter Russia, much closer to home, we really need to have a national conversation about whether that is an objective we nationally want, what is necessary to achieve it and what expenditure in cash and changes to how we live our lives we are willing to accept to do it credibly. I think you and I both know there is zero chance of that happening because there is very little perception of Russia as a genuine threat (and, let's face it, it really isn't an existential threat in the way the Soviet Union was, as you yourself have previously acknowledged). If we are not going to have that debate and make the necessary sacrifices, then we are presumably going to go on sending ludicrously small, poorly equipped, contingents to the Baltics to basically annoy the shit out of the Russians and give their anti-Western commentators, and Putin more material to justify their paranoid nationalistic agenda.


  • 0

#65 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Just Another Salisbury Tourist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 55,747 posts

Posted 18 July 2019 - 0200 AM

Stuart, it's not 1982, We had LOADS of escorts back then (something like 48 frigates and 13 FF/DDGs) and a bunch more (Tribals for example) in reserve. The reason was we had to maintain those numbers to escort convoys across the Pond. This was preparing for existential warfare stuff - we don't face an existential threat now. If you extrapolate from the 19 or so total escorts we have now from 61 back then, losing four now would be the equivalent of losing approximately 12 destroyers/frigates in 1982. Had that happened NO WAY would we have retaken the Falklands, and the Thatcher government would have fallen.  You wouldn't have seen people (other than nutters) clamouring to build a bigger better fleet to have another go.

 

No, I do not think it is possible to avoid all wars. I just think it's idiotic to go out actively looking for them - particularly against giant, technologically advanced, unscrupulous enemies at the other side of the planet. If we are going to deter Russia, much closer to home, we really need to have a national conversation about whether that is an objective we nationally want, what is necessary to achieve it and what expenditure in cash and changes to how we live our lives we are willing to accept to do it credibly. I think you and I both know there is zero chance of that happening because there is very little perception of Russia as a genuine threat (and, let's face it, it really isn't an existential threat in the way the Soviet Union was, as you yourself have previously acknowledged). If we are not going to have that debate and make the necessary sacrifices, then we are presumably going to go on sending ludicrously small, poorly equipped, contingents to the Baltics to basically annoy the shit out of the Russians and give their anti-Western commentators, and Putin more material to justify their paranoid nationalistic agenda.

 

As do I, the problem comes when those technologically advanced nations on the other side of the planet are the ones causing problems to ours security. How long is it going to be before China puts up a standing patrol in the Indian ocean or the Gulf of Aden, just to make the point they could strangle our supply any time they want? There is a word used during the cold war that is still relevant. 'Finlandization'. The toleration of a greater power because you believe yourself unable or unwilling to stand up to it.

 

I dont want to fight China, I dont personally think China wants to fight us. Between those two points is a cold war style grey zone where both sides jockey for ascendancy. We wont gain any measure of security by throwing our hands up in the air and giving up.

 

We are entitled to police the oceans as much as we can reasonably afford. Not doing so is just an invitation for China, or Russia, or any growing power to tighten the screws to gain whatever concessions they want. Iran is a perfect example of this.


  • 0

#66 Burncycle360

Burncycle360

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,618 posts

Posted 18 July 2019 - 0720 AM

Swords into plowshares
  • 0

#67 Chris Werb

Chris Werb

    In Zod We Trust

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 11,008 posts

Posted 18 July 2019 - 1707 PM

Stuart, it makes more sense not to be dependent on hydrocarbons that get here via the Indian Ocean than to put forces in there to contest the Chinese navy. If, however, you believe there could be a situation whereby the Chinese would attempt to mount a distant blockade in the Indian Ocean (about which India would apparently have nothing to say), the ships mounting it would be highly vulnerable to one weapon we have that does make sense - the SSN. Not only would their warships be vulnerable, but also the immensely long supply chain back to China. 

 

China is actually heavily dependent on imports from that part of the World itself and on exports to places like the UK to fund them. It would make no sense for them to get into a fight with the rest of the world. Now, if you look at how many countries China has invaded or bombed since 1980 and compare them to liberal democracies, like, for example, the UK, who would you say was the most aggressive?


  • 0

#68 Colin

Colin

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,994 posts

Posted 18 July 2019 - 1728 PM

Canada could provide oil to the UK, if we could ever get our act together on pipelines and terminals.


  • 0

#69 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Just Another Salisbury Tourist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 55,747 posts

Posted 19 July 2019 - 0817 AM

Stuart, it makes more sense not to be dependent on hydrocarbons that get here via the Indian Ocean than to put forces in there to contest the Chinese navy. If, however, you believe there could be a situation whereby the Chinese would attempt to mount a distant blockade in the Indian Ocean (about which India would apparently have nothing to say), the ships mounting it would be highly vulnerable to one weapon we have that does make sense - the SSN. Not only would their warships be vulnerable, but also the immensely long supply chain back to China. 

 

China is actually heavily dependent on imports from that part of the World itself and on exports to places like the UK to fund them. It would make no sense for them to get into a fight with the rest of the world. Now, if you look at how many countries China has invaded or bombed since 1980 and compare them to liberal democracies, like, for example, the UK, who would you say was the most aggressive?

 

China. At least WE arent building concentration and reeducation camps for Muslims. Nor are we building artificial islands to interfere with navigation. More to the point, your perspective overlooks PRC aggression against its neighbors from 1950 to 1980, or arming to the teeth regimes like Saddam Husseins Iraq. And forgetting Tianamen square. Or for that matter, events in Hong Kong of the past month. They are actually putting up OUR colonial flag! They would prefer to be our Colony than part of the PRC, is that some kind of endorsement or what? :D

 

Ask an Indian or the Vietnamese, or a Phillipino fisherman for that matter,  to ask how peaceful the Chinese are and you will get a very stark answer. Im sorry Chris, the self flagellation of Britain that Jeremy Corbyn goes in for does nothing for me, and it does no more when voiced by a man of your evident intelligence.

 

 

 

Trump alleged to be in back channel talks with Iran via Senator Rand Paul.

https://www.independ...n-a9011506.html


Edited by Stuart Galbraith, 19 July 2019 - 0818 AM.

  • 0

#70 JasonJ

JasonJ

    nonbiri

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 11,327 posts

Posted 19 July 2019 - 0850 AM

Can add to the list of threat of war vs Taiwan, frequent territorial water violation of the Senkaku islands, the backing of DPRK, and 2015 military parade aimed at "making Japan tremble".

All carried out by a state whose goverance is single party control and has been for 70 years and shows no signs of changing.

Only the US has a GDP larger than thus country. How can anyone in the right mind feel comfortable about this regime becoming more and more powerful and influential?


If the UK wants to hang out here, they are welcome, but if the UK doesn't, do so if you must. But my view is that would be a betrayal to what it means to be part of the West, however broad or general it is characterized as. That is not a welcome to hanging out here by doing war. It is to just keep the balance of power tilted in a way that keeps China bottled up inside the first island chain. CCP China can do whatever they want inside their own borders. But standing up to them at the Senkaku islands, at Taiwan, at the South China Sea, at DPRK, etc., is the correct thing to do.

Edited by JasonJ, 19 July 2019 - 0918 AM.

  • 0

#71 Nobu

Nobu

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,221 posts

Posted 19 July 2019 - 1022 AM

Ask an Indian or the Vietnamese, or a Phillipino fisherman for that matter

 

Their communist dictatorship with no signs of changing notwithstanding, I'd rather not ask the North Vietnamese.


  • 0

#72 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Just Another Salisbury Tourist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 55,747 posts

Posted 19 July 2019 - 1307 PM

Like it or not, there is no longer a North Vietnam.

 

 

On CNN, there are reports that Iran has just seized a British registered tanker. So what do you know, I guess we do need a navy after all....


  • 0

#73 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Just Another Salisbury Tourist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 55,747 posts

Posted 19 July 2019 - 1327 PM

Stena Bulk have announced the vessel as built in 2018 and that it has 23 souls on board. They have announced they have lost contact with the vessel and its heading north into Iranian waters.


  • 0

#74 Nobu

Nobu

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,221 posts

Posted 19 July 2019 - 1332 PM

The plot thickens.

 

These Iranians certainly learn fast. The world is watching what London's response will be.


  • 0

#75 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Just Another Salisbury Tourist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 55,747 posts

Posted 19 July 2019 - 1344 PM

Ships name is the Stena Impero.
https://www.marinetr...ery:26.0/zoom:9
  • 0

#76 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Just Another Salisbury Tourist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 55,747 posts

Posted 19 July 2019 - 1348 PM

https://www.marinetr...el:STENA_IMPERO
  • 0

#77 Chris Werb

Chris Werb

    In Zod We Trust

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 11,008 posts

Posted 19 July 2019 - 1419 PM

So Stuart, the best you can come up with is harassment of Vietnamese fishing vessels vs the hundreds of thousands of lives conflicts we have electively participated in have taken at vast expense on our parr. That's not self flagellation Stuart. It's trying to apply morality and common sense to our foreign policy.

Sensibly, we are not getting into an unwinnable naval arms race with China. Why should we? The Japanese aren't sending forces to help contain Russia on our doorstep, are they?. It would also cost us far more to project power there than for Japan to build and maintain it or equivalent deterrent power in situ. Now remind me what % of GDP Japan spends on defence.
  • 0

#78 DB

DB

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 11,387 posts

Posted 19 July 2019 - 1422 PM

It's a pity that there are now three topics where Chris and Stuart are fighting the fight of the hopelessly optimistic versus the helplessly pessimistic.


  • 0

#79 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Just Another Salisbury Tourist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 55,747 posts

Posted 19 July 2019 - 1423 PM

Chris, have you just missed what's happening?

You can shoot holes in my arguement as much as you like. Iran has just made an arguement for a British navy of decent capability that is irrefutable. And as America withdraws from the world stage, we are sure to see a lot more of it.
  • 0

#80 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Just Another Salisbury Tourist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 55,747 posts

Posted 19 July 2019 - 1443 PM

On DB, I take your point. I'm done with the subject. This thread is too important to derail again.

Edited by Stuart Galbraith, 19 July 2019 - 1444 PM.

  • 0