Jump to content


Photo

Tanker War Redux


  • Please log in to reply
374 replies to this topic

#281 Nobu

Nobu

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 2,780 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 06 August 2019 - 0833 AM

A Japanese mission under independent command would be a buffer of sorts between potentially hostile navies.

The Rising Sun flag used in such a peacekeeping context is interesting in various ways. It would also be respected by both.
  • 0

#282 glenn239

glenn239

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 5,118 posts

Posted 06 August 2019 - 0834 AM

Interesting how Japan is emerging as a player on the world stage in its own right, with real credibility and respect on both sides stemming from the real capacity for neutrality and arbitration.


Edited by glenn239, 06 August 2019 - 0835 AM.

  • 0

#283 Daan

Daan

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 2,087 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Where both sea and skies are grey.

Posted 06 August 2019 - 0856 AM

Is Japan willing to incur the costs of being a real buffer instead of just a symbolic presence? When push comes to shove, I am afraid that the emperor won’t have have any clothes on.
  • 0

#284 DB

DB

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 11,267 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Hertfordshire, England

Posted 06 August 2019 - 0924 AM

Sounds familiar. Presumably Japan (still) has a significant reliance on ME oil and gas.
I maintain that the best way to look after your interests regarding energy security is to eliminate any dependence on unstable states, except of course, those that lead to fission.
  • 0

#285 BansheeOne

BansheeOne

    Bullshit filter overload, venting into civility charger

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 14,133 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Berlin

Posted 06 August 2019 - 1134 AM

Well as far as the Gibraltar thing is concerned, its pretty clear Gibraltar THOUGHT it was acting on the EU's own sanctions. So did Britain when it gave them assistance. So I cannot help but think the EU really needs to recognise if its member states are going to be given sanctions to enforce, they really need to back them up when they do so, rather than act wholly uninvolved in the whole thing when it gets a bit sticky.


"Well they thought they were upholding the law" sounds like a recipe for something that would end up on the "When defending cops becomes impossible" thread. Particularly since Gibraltar changed its pertinent regulations just one day earlier to allow itself to seize ships violating EU sanctions, and said sanctions ban the export of oil from rather than import to Syria.

Now the Banias Refinery Company the shipment was allegedly destined for does show up on the EU sanction list as supporting the Assad regime and had its assets frozen in the EU, and along with Reuters research showing the ship never was in Basra when its manifest showed it had supposedly loaded Iraqi oil there this probably caused Panama to pull its flag.

However, the legal construction remains at least shaky, and doesn't so much show a will to implement EU sanctions rather than to wring them in shape for a specific case; possibly as a favor to the Americans for their own sanctions regime against Iran, as some suspect. So we're back at the point where the EU is miffed for being dragged into US-UK politics.

Edited by BansheeOne, 06 August 2019 - 1135 AM.

  • 0

#286 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Just Another Salisbury Tourist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 53,885 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Eloiland

Posted 06 August 2019 - 1148 AM

Well as far as the Gibraltar thing is concerned, its pretty clear Gibraltar THOUGHT it was acting on the EU's own sanctions. So did Britain when it gave them assistance. So I cannot help but think the EU really needs to recognise if its member states are going to be given sanctions to enforce, they really need to back them up when they do so, rather than act wholly uninvolved in the whole thing when it gets a bit sticky.

"Well they thought they were upholding the law" sounds like a recipe for something that would end up on the "When defending cops becomes impossible" thread. Particularly since Gibraltar changed its pertinent regulations just one day earlier to allow itself to seize ships violating EU sanctions, and said sanctions ban the export of oil from rather than import to Syria.
Now the Banias Refinery Company the shipment was allegedly destined for does show up on the EU sanction list as supporting the Assad regime and had its assets frozen in the EU, and along with Reuters research showing the ship never was in Basra when its manifest showed it had supposedly loaded Iraqi oil there this probably caused Panama to pull its flag.
However, the legal construction remains at least shaky, and doesn't so much show a will to implement EU sanctions rather than to wring them in shape for a specific case; possibly as a favor to the Americans for their own sanctions regime against Iran, as some suspect. So we're back at the point where the EU is miffed for being dragged into US-UK politics.
I don't buy it. If it happened under johnson, yes I could perhaps see it. But the UK government has been with the Europeans against the sanctions. Both May and Hunt both stated many times they were against Trumps response. They were the ones that decided to support Gibraltars request.

It doesn't stand up. We would not have alienated Europe in this manner to placate Trump. And the EU really should support those nations enforcing sanctions on their behalf, or next time nobody will bother.

Edited by Stuart Galbraith, 06 August 2019 - 1223 PM.

  • 0

#287 Nobu

Nobu

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 2,780 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 06 August 2019 - 1213 PM

Probably symbolic for now, but symbolism is important to cultures that value face, such as those of Iran and Japan.

 

Japanese neutrality in the face of pressure to choose and act otherwise may be tested by both sides.

 

What is certain is that after tasting the freedom of operating under independent command, the Japanese Navy will grow fond of it.


  • 0

#288 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Just Another Salisbury Tourist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 53,885 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Eloiland

Posted 07 August 2019 - 0151 AM

Oh, this has the potential to get very interesting very quickly....

 

https://www.thedrive...spite-trade-war

China has said that its navy could escort Chinese-flagged commercial vessels in the Persian Gulf, Gulf of Oman, and the Strait of Hormuz, in response to growing security concerns in the wake of Iran's seizure of multiple foreign oil tankers in recent the past month. In addition, Chinese officials are considering joining a new U.S.-backed maritime security framework in the region, despite serious tensions between the two countries at present, including a massive trade war. This news comes as the U.S. government has reportedly sought to take a more secondary role in that operation, offering the United Kingdom a leading role, in a push to "internationalize" the effort and attract foreign partners.

Chinese Ambassador to the United Arab Emirates Ni Jian informed Reuters of his country's positions on regional maritime security in Abu Dhabi on Aug. 6, 2019. China's embassy in the country subsequently provided additional details to the wire service via text message.

 

"If there happens to be a very unsafe situation we will consider having our navy escort our commercial vessels," Ni told Reuters. "We have the position that all disputes should be sorted by peaceful means and by political discussions, not ... military actions."

"We are studying the U.S. proposal on Gulf escort arrangements," the Chinese Embassy in the UAE added.

 

 


  • 0

#289 Daan

Daan

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 2,087 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Where both sea and skies are grey.

Posted 07 August 2019 - 0358 AM

Another interesting article at 'The Drive'  about how USAF F-15Es are escorting USN vessels as they traverse the Strait of Hormuz. Among the weapons carried by the F-15Es are CBUs!


  • 0

#290 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Just Another Salisbury Tourist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 53,885 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Eloiland

Posted 07 August 2019 - 0450 AM

Yeah, thats not entirely unprecedented. I seem to recall some USN aircraft totaled a couple of Libyan missile boats with Rockeyes in the 1980's. Against Inflatables or Boghammars, it should do quite well.


  • 0

#291 Josh

Josh

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 14,383 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:New York City

Posted 07 August 2019 - 1149 AM

Another interesting article at 'The Drive'  about how USAF F-15Es are escorting USN vessels as they traverse the Strait of Hormuz. Among the weapons carried by the F-15Es are CBUs!

 

Operation Preying Mantis also employed Mk20s on boghammer craft. Apparently its perfectly effective - it seems to me one bomblet landing anywhere on the boat would probably would or kill the entire crew. CBU-87s would actually be even easier to employ in that they have a half dozen selectable pattern densities. I think the tightest pattern is 30 meter circle with the loosest being around 200 x 300 meter oval. You'd probably want something in between for a small boat depending on how close you were on release. Though as the article notes that canister is probably CBU-105 with smart sub munitions. I suspect that would make hunting boats pretty much fish in a barrel, with multiple kills per can possible if they bunch.

On the note of F-15Es, a large number of them showed up wearing Dragon AESA pods on their center line station apparently. Its a very high resolution system that apparently can pick out individual soldiers walking on land.

Question for the forum, if you go to the link below, what are the oblong three stores on the bomb racks of the F-15E in the photograph? The AESA is centerline, and the front stations have what looks like LANTIRN nav pod and a SNIPER or LIGHTENING targeting pod. But there are two stores starboard and another port in between the drop tanks that are completely unfamiliar to me.

 

https://www.thedrive...-eye-radar-pods


  • 0

#292 Daan

Daan

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 2,087 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Where both sea and skies are grey.

Posted 07 August 2019 - 1220 PM

pskkcUT.jpg

 

On old F-16:

cpt-tony-yount-unloads-his-gear-from-a-t


  • 0

#293 Josh

Josh

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 14,383 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:New York City

Posted 07 August 2019 - 1454 PM

Ah yes, now that you mention it I have seen them before though I forgot what the official name was for them. Most pics I see of fighters aren't self deployments so that store doesn't come up often.


Edited by Josh, 07 August 2019 - 1454 PM.

  • 0

#294 Daan

Daan

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 2,087 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Where both sea and skies are grey.

Posted 07 August 2019 - 1637 PM

It is called the MXU-648 Cargo Pod: https://www.cobham.c...asheet/docview/

 

However, I see these are also referred to as travel pods.


  • 0

#295 BansheeOne

BansheeOne

    Bullshit filter overload, venting into civility charger

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 14,133 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Berlin

Posted 08 August 2019 - 1218 PM

MSCI Advisory

2019-012-Persian Gulf, Strait of Hormuz, Gulf of Oman, Arabian Sea, Red Sea-Threats to Commercial Vessels by Iran

Description:


This revised advisory cancels U.S. Maritime Advisories 2019-004 and 2019-008.

1. References: U.S. Maritime Alerts 2019-004A, 2019-003A, 2019-002A, and 2019-001A.

2. Issue: Heightened military activity and increased political tensions in this region continue to pose serious threats to commercial vessels. Associated with these threats is a potential for miscalculation or misidentification that could lead to aggressive actions. Vessels operating in the Persian Gulf, Strait of Hormuz, and Gulf of Oman may also encounter GPS interference, bridge-to-bridge communications spoofing, and/or other communications jamming with little to no warning.

Since May 2019, the following maritime incidents have occurred in this region:

- Six attacks against commercial vessels (see U.S. Maritime Alerts 2019-002A and 2019-003A);

- Shoot-down of U.S. Navy remotely piloted aircraft over international waters;

- Attempted at-sea interdiction of Isle of Man-flagged M/V BRITISH HERITAGE;

- Seizure of ex-Panama-flagged M/V RIAH;

- Seizure of U.K.-flagged M/V STENA IMPERO (see U.S. Maritime Alert 2019-004A); and

- Detention and subsequent release of Liberian-flagged M/V MESDAR (see U.S. Maritime Alert 2019-004A).

In at least two of these incidents, vessels reported GPS interference. One vessel reportedly shut off its Automatic Identification System (AIS) before it was seized, complicating response efforts. Vessels have also reported spoofed bridge-to-bridge communications from unknown entities falsely claiming to be U.S. or coalition warships.

[...]


https://www.maritime...mercial-vessels
  • 0

#296 Jeff

Jeff

    Godfather of Tanknet Birthday Greetings

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 29,020 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 08 August 2019 - 1908 PM

Whenever the US tries to replace a Russia-friendly government with its own (and it often seems the case that the targets do tend to be Russia-friendly),

More the reality of how nations line up in the world than an effort by the US to go after Russia-friendly nations. It's not our fault that the bad actors in the world are usually aligned with the Russians and more and more the Chinese.


  • 0

#297 Nobu

Nobu

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 2,780 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 09 August 2019 - 1212 PM

This would explain Israel's burgeoning relationship with China and Chinese in various ways.
  • 0

#298 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Just Another Salisbury Tourist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 53,885 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Eloiland

Posted 15 August 2019 - 0442 AM

ANNND just when you thought it was all calming down, it all suddenly gets a lot more complicated.

 

http://english.alara...-newspaper.html

The United States has applied to seize the Iranian Grace 1 tanker in Gibraltar commandeered by British Royal Marines in the Mediterranean last month, complicating a possible tanker swap between Britain and the Islamic Republic.

The Grace 1 oil tanker was seized by marines in a daring landing in darkness off the coast of the British overseas territory on July 4.

Gibraltar said the tanker was suspected of smuggling oil to Syria in breach of European Union sanctions.

As tensions grew with Tehran, Iran’s Revolutionary Guards seized the British-flagged Stena Impero in the Gulf on July 19.

Gibraltar was due to release the Grace 1 vessel but just hours before, the US Department of Justice sought to seize it.

“The US Department of Justice has applied to seize the Iranian supertanker Grace 1 in Gibraltar, just hours before the Gibraltar Government was poised to release it,” said the Gibraltar Chronicle newspaper, which was first to report the news.

The Gibraltarian court’s chief justice, Anthony Dudley, made clear that were it not for the US move, “the ship would have sailed,” the Chronicle reported.

It was not immediately clear to what the US Justice Department’s application related.

The application means that a decision on the fate of Grace 1 will not be made until later on Thursday. The government of Gibraltar did not immediately comment on the report.

The captain and three officers of the Grace 1 have been released from arrest.

A source in Gibraltar told Reuters ahead of the court hearing that the Grace 1 would likely be allowed to leave, stoking speculation about a possible tanker swap with Iran.


  • 0

#299 Josh

Josh

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 14,383 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:New York City

Posted 15 August 2019 - 0926 AM

What possible justification or jurisdiction could the US have in this matter?


  • 0

#300 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Just Another Salisbury Tourist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 53,885 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Eloiland

Posted 15 August 2019 - 1046 AM

They have their own sanctions on Iran selling oil abroad, so I guess they were chancing their arm. As it turned out it when through the Gibraltar court, and they turned it down. It will be leaving shortly. Of course, that doesnt mean that 12 hours out of Gibraltar the 6th Fleet wont assault it, but it wont be our problem anymore.

 

From what Gibraltar revealed, they found evidence, or so they claim, that it WAS going to syria, but we are letting it go after Iran gave assurances it wont go there.

 

A through occurs that this may be contrived to put distance between Britain and America, to give us a role in negotiations on our Tanker, and perhap work on the nuclear deal. Although Ill leave others to consider whether there is anyone in the White House quite that smart.


  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users