UK 'begged to be part' of Iran Flotilla in The Royal Navy Forum

RSS
Email

0 Points

UK 'begged to be part' of Iran Flotilla

Author	Comment
Mikey	UK 'begged to be part' of Iran Flotilla	Lead	[-]
Posts: 1534 ( 7-Feb-2012 13:01:23) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Remove this ad According to the Telegraph: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/9064697/Britain-had-to-plead-with-US-to-take-part-in-Iran-flotilla.html
HarbingeR		#1	[-]
Posts: 56 ( 7-Feb-2012 13:51:10) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Sounds about right. Without a carrier we've quickly become a bit of a naval sideshow.
Lord Lieutenant		#2	[-]
Posts: 642 ( 7-Feb-2012 13:58:24) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	I know! 6 Sea Harriers would have been a far more impressive show of force than a T23 specialist ASW platform in a high ASW threat area.
hermes82		#3	[-]
Posts: 431 ( 7-Feb-2012 14:20:46) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	POWER PROJECTION LL POWER PROJECTION
istobie		#4	[-]
Posts: 1227 ( 7-Feb-2012 14:43:08) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Yeah, we'd have parked that 22Kt CVS right alongside their Nimitz and the Iranians would have fled in terror, being insufficiently intimidated by the 100Kt behemoth already in theatre. I'm not buying the story to be honest - recent US foreign policy has been strong on getting the Europeans to do some heavy lifting and it's logical that they'd have asked any major euro power to at least show the flag - having the French and UK on side is politically, if not militarily necessary.
perfectgeneral		#5	[-]
Posts: 1046 ( 7-Feb-2012 14:49:25) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	I'd have thought a better use of resources would be a type 23 on patrol down in the South Atlantic, while the marvellous new type 45 is on full show and protecting against the far more likely and problematic missile threat in the straits. Lord Palmerston, "The British Army should be a projectile fired by the Royal Navy". Or was that Sir Edward Grey, Foreign Secretary? "No definitely the British Army"
Jeremy M H		#6	[-]
Posts: 643 ( 7-Feb-2012 15:17:22) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	istobie wrote: Yeah, we'd have parked that 22Kt CVS right alongside their Nimitz and the Iranians would have fled in terror, being insufficiently intimidated by the 100Kt behemoth already in theatre. I'm not buying the story to be honest - recent US foreign policy has been strong on getting the Europeans to do some heavy lifting and it's logical that they'd have asked any major euro power to at least show the flag - having the French and UK on side is politically, if not militarily necessary. The story actually makes sense to me from a US perspective and is consistent with some things Obama has been trying to accomplish, namely getting Europe to lift a larger share of the defense burden. Between SSN's and the surface ships and the ASW helicopters I am pretty sure the CVBG could look after itself from an ASW perspective. Not that a Type 23 is not a useful addition but I can see where someone would say this is a high threat missile environment and we are adding a ship to the task force that does not really contribute in that environment in a considerable fashion. I can very much see the US administration using this to make a point along the lines of we appreciate your offer but send something more useful next time.
Sunk at Narvik		#7	[-]
Posts: 3022 ( 7-Feb-2012 15:21:18) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	The original source is ru...Russias new propaganda machine. I particularly enjoyed the "only after Sarkozy interveaned" bit. So we have Obama turning us away, only to be let in by Americas new French buddies! A nice twist of the knife by Russia there (: If its actually true then our present Govt will have thoroughly deserved the humiliation of course. Sit back and enjoy (:
Mikey		#8	[-]
Posts: 1535 ( 7-Feb-2012 15:25:26) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Sunk, where does it say it's a russian source?
IcelofAngeln		#9	[-]
Posts: 2148 ( 7-Feb-2012 17:33:21) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	"I can very much see the US administration using this to make a point along the lines of we appreciate your offer but send something more useful next time." Bingo. A Daring would be a very nice addition, since the nightmare scenario vs Iran is a saturation attack by shore-based ASMs. Not much a Type 23 could do about that.
istobie		#10	[-]
Posts: 1230 ( 7-Feb-2012 18:29:45) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Remove this ad It'd probably soak a couple up but yeah, getting a Daring down there would be useful all around - might turn the screws to get CEC into service a bit earlier and maybe some surface to surface kit plus it'd be a thorough shake down of PAAMS, Ian
Deepsixteen		#11	[-]
Posts: 88 ( 7-Feb-2012 19:47:55) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Hi Think Daring is on the way. http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/DefenceNews/MilitaryOperations/HmsDaringBecomesFirstType45ToPassThroughTheSuezCanal.htm
Moskit		#12	[-]
Posts: 1730 ( 7-Feb-2012 19:52:19) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Of course, being "irrelevant" no-one would mind if we removed the MCM force from the Gulf (chatted about this at the office this morning with a few people who were involved and the word "tosh" was banded around a bit. Not entirely unexpected).
istobie		#13	[-]
Posts: 1231 ( 7-Feb-2012 20:27:35) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Moskit wrote: Of course, being "irrelevant" no-one would mind if we removed the MCM force from the Gulf (chatted about this at the office this morning with a few people who were involved and the word "tosh" was banded around a bit. Not entirely unexpected). Eeeegggsackerly... Not buying the article, nationalist bollocks that's not helping. The RN is there, it's contributing.
Graeme65		#14	[-]
Posts: 605 ( 7-Feb-2012 21:42:45) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	I do think that taking any sensationalist headline with a huge pinch of salt is always a good idea. Also, given the political advantage of having a UK and French warship with the US group that exercised free passage, it would be odd if it wasn't planned like that from quite early on. I would hope that these three countries are in lock step over the whole Iran enrichment issue. Anything less would play into Iranian hands, and that would be very bad.
Davierj1		#15	[-]
Posts: 30 ( 7-Feb-2012 22:44:51) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	I don't buy it. If the US has learned anything its that going it alone doesnt pay in the eyes of the international community. When actually did the Americans refuse any form of international contribution on a military scale? If they've learned anything its that unilateralism against a weaker power is seen to be a weakness not a strength. No, they are clever enough to know the power taking a lead but also that in doing so you still need your friends!
ChrisPat		#16	[-]
Posts: 2560 ( 8-Feb-2012 02:10:56) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Don't think they really had to learn. Last time the US didn't have lots of Allies (eg Korea, Gulf 90-91) or more than a few (Vietnam, Iraq '03) was in the Caribbean islands in the '30s or the Spanish American dust up, depending on what you say makes a war.
CliffS	Semantics	#17	[-]
Posts: 2046 (13-Feb-2012 13:37:45) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	ChrisPat wrote: Don't think they really had to learn. Last time the US didn't have lots of Allies (eg Korea, Gulf 90-91) or more than a few (Vietnam, Iraq '03) was in the Caribbean islands in the '30s or the Spanish American dust up, depending on what you say makes a war. IIRC, both Panama and Grenada were exclusively US efforts. The Panama campaign could be sold as "America looking after its regional interests". But the invasion of a British Commonwealth country, on the flimsiest of pretexts, was quite a breathtaking stretch of credulity. Still ... it enabled Clint Eastwood to become heir apparent to John Wayne. Cheers, Cliff
Larrikin22		#18	[-]
Posts: 2287 (13-Feb-2012 14:54:15) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Sorry, Grenada wasn't on the flimsiest of pretexts, the Cubans were in the process of taking it over, the evidence for that is overwhelming. You can lead a leftard to knowledge, but you can't make them think
angelic3000		#19	[-]
Posts: 103 (13-Feb-2012 23:27:24) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	So let me go through this slowly...... 1) Americans wanted to send a bunch of ships to the gulf for a party. 2) Britain initially decided that we were not interested in going, preferring to stay at home and watch x-factor. 3) Then the French started to feel a little short between the legs and decided to gate crash the party with a single frigate. 4) Britain, fearing that we would look like a bunch of sad losers, decided the gate crash the event with a frigate of our own. Can someone please explain why we should bother ourselves with what the Americans decide to do with a bunch of their own ships? Why do we have to join them? Do we not have other things that we can be doing with our ships? Frankly the special relationship is pretty much dead now and if we carry on like this will will start being compared to one of America's old girl friends who can't get over the fact that she has been dumped. Time for us to live for the future.
Jeremy M H		#20	[-]
Posts: 655 (13-Feb-2012 23:47:03) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Remove this ad angelic3000 wrote: So let me go through this slowly...... 1) Americans wanted to send a bunch of ships to the gulf for a party. 2) Britain initially decided that we were not interested in going, preferring to stay at home and watch x-factor. 3) Then the French started to feel a little short between the legs and decided to gate crash the party with a single frigate. 4) Britain, fearing that we would look like a bunch of sad losers, decided the gate crash the event with a frigate of our own. Can someone please explain why we should bother ourselves with what the Americans decide to do with a bunch of their own ships? Why do we have to join them? Do we not have other things that we can be doing with our ships? Frankly the special relationship is pretty much dead now and if we carry on like this will will start being compared to one of America's old girl friends who can't get over the fact that she has been dumped. Time for us to live for the future. I am guessing, for your own benefit, that it is a good thing more adult people run the UK and EU. Europe is every bit as dependent on oil from that region as is the US and has far less capability to keep that area secure if Iran did decided to shut down transit. Seeing as the EU has a huge interest in keeping that area open for transit it only seems fair that they contribute some ships, particularly considering one of the sources of tension in this case was EU embargoes being put in place on crude oil coming out of Iran. I am guessing both France and the UK made the decision that showing they wanted to help was important seeing as they might someday need the help of the US dealing with a problem in that area that they are not at all equipped to deal with.

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

Yuku free message boards

UK 'begged to be part' of Iran Flotilla

UK 'begged to be part' of Iran Flotilla