Fifteen RN Sailors captured by Iranian forces

[YorkieBen]

only problem is that the JSF wont be in service for another 10 years at least (funding issues in US Congress)

plus with the RAF controlling all of them, how many do you think our new carriers will hold...

for the next few years until the Type 45 destroyers come in our fleet will be dangerously vulnerable (I would say criminally so) - plus we are only getting 6 type 45s instead of 12...

[Metier9]

How far is oman from iran?

[Tarffie]

Other side of the Gulf, to the South.

[nichomach]

only problem is that the JSF wont be in service for another 10 years at least (funding issues in US Congress)

I wasn't aware that another 10 years was on the cards...ouch.

plus with the RAF controlling all of them, how many do you think our new carriers will hold...

So the joint Harrier thing's continuing then, with all the aircraft under a unified command? My understanding was that the Navy aircraft would be being operated by the Navy.

for the next few years until the Type 45 destroyers come in our fleet will be dangerously vulnerable (I would say criminally so) - plus we are only getting 6 type 45s instead of 12...

I have to admit, I don't like the idea of relying wholly on ship-based defences against airborne threat; if they're within range of your missiles, then...

[YorkieBen]

the fleet air arm harrier sqdrns are still manned by royal naval personnel and are still considered part of the navy - however the RAF are in command - in addition the joint force means that RN aircraft are rarely onboard the carriers.

finally with the retirement of the sea harrier they have kept the same number of RAF/RN harrier squadrons but just reduced the number of planes in the squadron so there are enough harriers

the problem of the RAF controlling navy planes has been shown in the period between WW1 and WW2 when the RAF controlled naval aircraft - the navy's preferred task - e.g. fleet protection etc is very much on the back burner

[chuckskull]

Sorry Chuck but that is a bit off imo - for a start none of our ships carry land attack missiles, only our subs (plus we dont even have that many tomahawks available) and if we were sat 50 miles off the coast the Iranian's asnti ship missiles would be in range, and we would get blown out of the water by the iranian's aircraft. The idea that a cruise missile strike would knock out the majoprity of Iran's airforce in one go is wishful thinking. Tbh the Persian Gulf is the worst place for a carrier to be - it is too small. Air superiority is still a major part modern military thinking - why do you think the US Navy refuse to send a carrier into the gulf without guarantees of US air force cover?

I have to admit I'm not as up to date on the RN weapons systems as some, and pulled those numbers out of thin air, but I very much doubt it couldn't be done if needed. If push comes to shove we have a big pile of Nukes that need to be gotten rid of

Seriously though, this goes back to the point that was made before that we often give the impression we wont do anything in these situations. We should have the ability to take on and defeat anyone who wishes to threaten our citizens or soldiers.

In the case of Iran, they spend a lot of time making their military seem more powerful than it is. Anyone remember Iraq and it's elite Republican Guard that were 9ft tall and ate SAS platoons for breakfast? Nope me neither, which is my point exactly. Lots of talking and not much to back it up.

If an allied(UK, Israel and America, for example) force made a concerted effort to disable the Iranian military, the battle would be over before they could respond.

Anyway this is all hot air, because we'll spend the next few weeks taking the diplomatic route and making guarded threats, see a few videos of malnourished soldiers, before Iran is happy it's rattled it's sabre enough, the sailors are released and everyone will have forgotten by the end of April.

[nichomach]

Ye effing gods, the LAST thing we want is Israel joining in; sorry, but after their Lebanese adventure, WE might be able to get away with self-defence (with justification) but if they were involved (not, bluntly, that they could be assumed to want to be), they'd be a diplomatic liability and a public opinion catastrophe in the region.

[chuckskull]

Ye effing gods, the LAST thing we want is Israel joining in; sorry, but after their Lebanese adventure, WE might be able to get away with self-defence (with justification) but if they were involved (not, bluntly, that they could be assumed to want to be), they'd be a diplomatic liability and a public opinion catastrophe in the region.

Yeah i was hesitant to mention Israel, but their itching for a shot at them, America having talked them down the last few times it came close, but if America were to get involved it would be much harder for them to convince Israel not to.

[Tarffie]

Anyone remember Iraq and it's elite Republican Guard that were 9ft tall and ate SAS platoons for breakfast?

I think we all know who to thank for that

[nichomach]

the fleet air arm harrier sqdrns are still manned by royal naval personnel and are still considered part of the navy - however the RAF are in command - in addition the joint force means that RN aircraft are rarely onboard the carriers.

Yep; mind you, the part of the problem there I think is that the remaining GR Harriers are really only capable of strikes against land targets, which has really been the RAF's purview for donkey's. The reintroduction of a maritime strike and air-to-air capability with JSF could well mean that the Navy would have a much better argument for retaining control over its own aircraft. To that extent, although it would better if we had an ongoing air-to-air and maritime strike capability, at least with FAA still in existence there will be an ongoing pool of pilots to draw on, which'll help.

finally with the retirement of the sea harrier they have kept the same number of RAF/RN harrier squadrons but just reduced the number of planes in the squadron so there are enough harriers

Hmm...but since the remaining Harriers are really only ground attack capable, although, yes, we could always do with more, they're really only facing the same mission requirements as before the Sea Harriers were chucked. As I say, I don't like the lack of an organic air defence capability for the fleet, but the remaining Harriers couldn't do that job anyway.

the problem of the RAF controlling navy planes has been shown in the period between WW1 and WW2 when the RAF controlled naval aircraft - the navy's preferred task - e.g. fleet protection etc is very much on the back burner

Very much agreed; indeed the RAF's hydrophobia even extended to their own maritime activities - Coastal Command was forever a Cinderella service, even when Britain was absolutely dependent upon seaborne supplies for survival.

[Rave]

All this discussion of our naval air-attack capability has more or less lost me. As far as I can tell, the fact is that 15 of our Royal Marines have been kidnapped by Iran from outside Iranian territorial waters.

That, more or less, is an act of war. Rather than trying to get them back through harsh words exchanged between diplomats, we should simply be saying: give them back now- or you've declared war on us, and we will destroy you.

I marched against the war on Iraq, as I thought it was a fools errand. We've done it now though, and to topple Saddam only to cower before the real troublemaker in the Middle East- Iran- is IMO the hight of idiocy. We should finish what we started.

[excalibur2]

That, more or less, is an act of war. Rather than trying to get them back through harsh words exchanged between diplomats, we should simply be saying: give them back now- or you've declared war on us, and we will destroy you.

If it was that simple the US would have done it under Carter and right wing Reagan when Iran took American hostages......the US bribed their way out with the Iran-contra affair.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-Contra_Affair

[chuckskull]

That, more or less, is an act of war. Rather than trying to get them back through harsh words exchanged between diplomats, we should simply be saying: give them back now- or you've declared war on us, and we will destroy you.

Hear hear, directly attacking our soldiers is far more cause for war than there ever was for Iraq.

Diplomacy has it's place, Marines have theirs. In this case the ship should of been intercepted before it even entered Iraqi waters, and certainly before it left them with 15 of our soldiers.

[Blitzen]

Blitzen - afaik Ocean is going through a shorter refit, not a full blown think like Ark, although I may be wrong - she's been worked hard being the only one of her class and is built to a lesser standard than a standard warship (she only cost £150 million to build which in warship terms is piss all)

Did ya know, (British Legion = ex forces usually so prolly ), that Ocean's first Sea Trial wa a complete shambles and none of the amphibious vehicle bays worked

I remember being on Fearless a few years before that and it was absolutely filthy. Ocean wa like walking from a squat and into the lobby of the Ritz


On a more serious note, lets go and get our lads back.
Sod all this diplomacy and chat.

If a bunch of Arabs think its OK to take our countrymen away then its time they saw what we can do instead of us just threatening it.
Iran and Syria need putting in their place tbpfh.
In Oman, we have a great allie. We help to train their Naval forces and they are great guys.
So, land and sea assault needs to be happening now and not later before our lads end up on a chopping board and Oman is the perfect platform for this.

I marched against the war on Iraq, as I thought it was a fools errand.

When i was in Iraq it was people like you that upset my wife and family more than the thought that i may not come back.
It borders on being a traitor.
Have you considered moving to France?

Its because people are prepared to fight for WHAT IS RIGHT that gives people with your opinions the opportunity to express them. Don't you EVER forget that!

[iranu]

That, more or less, is an act of war. Rather than trying to get them back through harsh words exchanged between diplomats, we should simply be saying: give them back now- or you've declared war on us, and we will destroy you.

As much I'd love to do the same, we cannot perform gunboat diplomacy without gunboats.

There are around 7000 personnel in southern Iraq and it would be very dangerous for us to launch any kind of open attack on Iran. They know that we don't have the kit or man power to do it and they are simply telling us so.

The only way Britain could bring the Iranians to there knees would involve spreading some instant sunshine around.

This will play out the same way that it happened last time with boats on the shat el arab waterway. (they still haven't given back the British kit). We will demand this they will do that etc etc and a few weeks later the men will be back (and lets's hope they are all ok).

For retribution I would suggest a nice subarine launched cruise missile attack at night on Iranian petrol refining plants.
They import 40% of their petrol and rising. Already the governent has rationed petrol prices at 5p for about two tank loads for an average car per month. 22p there after. Make petrol more expensive and the civilians will feel it and start to get rowdy.

Much better than dreaming of GR7/GR9's taking out Iran's airforce - Even with the now scrapped FA2 we could only have had 12 airframes on defence.

[excalibur2]

When i was in Iraq it was people like you that upset my wife and family more than the thought that i may not come back.
It borders on being a traitor.
Have you considered moving to France?

Its because people are prepared to fight for WHAT IS RIGHT that gives people with your opinions the opportunity to express them. Don't you EVER forget that!

That's a bit harsh I was against attacking Iraq, but once British forces were committed backed them 100% (i.e. not Blair but our forces), same for any situation stupid politicians send our force too................can you see the difference?

As the majority of Brits were against attacking Iraq, without the UN or the EU, it causes a dilemma in that you can't hide your feelings (re intial attack on Iraq) yet you want to support our troops, well IMO troops on the ground will pickup the vibes, but as long as we treat them as "heroes" it will give them confidence/morale to finish the job.