Iran tries to hijack vessel British Heritage

[RoofGardener]

9 hours ago, stevewinn said:

13 type 23's, and 6 type 45's. out of the 19 ships, 6 are in deep refit and two are working up and two are heading into refit. we have basically have 9 ships. (we only have 3 type 45's available.

The Iranian coast is bristling with anti-ship missiles and thousands of fast craft. in order to deal take them would need serious action. we could do it but it would be a clear act of war. the straits would be closed and the world economy would probably go into recession. not to mention the straits are shallow so not ideal for our subs but gives Iran the advantage with their mini-subs, we only have three Type 23's available with towed array. so we could lose ships in a shooting war. we lack effective offensive measures when it comes to fast craft, especially swarm attack. we have Brimstone/Sea Spear. on trials. we have Martlet being trialled on a type 23.

On the carrier, she's laid up with a leak, and im not sure we'd want her anywhere near the straits, though we have just received batch for a second squadron(207) of F35B's, 6 arrived this week. taking our total to 15 fighters. 9 in 617Sqn 6 in 207 Sqn. 

At the end of the day we have billion pound ships which are high end war fighting assets for true deep sea Naval battles, but lack the close in littoral assets, and what ships we do have we don't have the numbers. like i said in a previous post its a true the emperor has no clothes moment.

The best we can do in this situation is release their tanker and they release ours, and hope the politicians learn the lesson, and tool up our Navy. so in the future when we are in a position to walk the walk, (payback can come at a later date for Iran, we still owe them one for capturing our sailors) But lets be clear its going to take a national humiliation to occur before our political class act. akin to when De Ruyter sailed up the Medway.

 

 

I had no idea that the Royal Navy was at such a low ebb (albeit temporarily). 

Still, the Iranian Navy (including the Islamic Guard) are pretty feeble. Their frigates and corvettes rely almost exclusively on the C802 anti-shipping missile, which we have proven we are able to shoot down. And they don't have thousands of fast craft, they only have hundreds, many of which are only armed with a machine gun. 

It's a real shame about big lizzy. She wouldn't need to be anywhere near the gulf in order for her F-35's to support naval operations against Iran. With a combat range of over 600 nautical miles, the Lizzy could be 400 miles away, and still provide a very effective interdiction force. 

[+and-then]

4 hours ago, Captain Risky said:

You do that. I firmly believe nothing good comes outta someone that blames others before he's even attempted to do better. 

But be prepared to end up with egg on your face for when Trump does a classic backflip and ends up calling the Iranian leaders good guys, just like he did with Putin, Rocket man and Erdogan. 

If it accomplishes the end of that program, I'll be DELIGHTED that no military force was necessary.  

[+and-then]

12 hours ago, A rather obscure Bassoon said:

Maybe its time to put private security on Tankers as they did when passing Somalia.

It makes sense except for the possibility that the Iranians would then resort to attacking and sinking the vessels instead.  It would be an environmental nightmare at best.

[Alchopwn]

18 hours ago, RoofGardener said:

Utter and total piffle. In what way is this an abuse of power ? It is an entirely legitimate EXERCISE of legal power under maritime law. 

Agreed.  On the other hand, the choke point at the Strait of Hormuz does allow Iran to pull a similar stunt, and apparently Britain was severely underprepared for this eventuality.  Why were there no Royal Marines on the Tankers to defend them?  It is beyond me.  Utter incompetence.  You'd think Britain of all nations, with its long history of naval actions would have a clue that this tit-for-tat "predictable outcome is predictable", and taken steps accordingly.

[ExpandMyMind]

3 hours ago, RoofGardener said:

Do bear in mind that the Grace-1 (the tanker the British captured) is NOT an Iranian ship, nor does it have an Iranian crew. 

They have claimed it, the Americans knew they owned it before telling the British to seize it and it has their cargo. I think it's safe to say that it's an Iranian ship, regardless of how confusing the paper-trail to its documented ownership seems to be.

[stevewinn]

7 hours ago, RoofGardener said:

I had no idea that the Royal Navy was at such a low ebb (albeit temporarily). 

Still, the Iranian Navy (including the Islamic Guard) are pretty feeble. Their frigates and corvettes rely almost exclusively on the C802 anti-shipping missile, which we have proven we are able to shoot down. And they don't have thousands of fast craft, they only have hundreds, many of which are only armed with a machine gun. 

It's a real shame about big lizzy. She wouldn't need to be anywhere near the gulf in order for her F-35's to support naval operations against Iran. With a combat range of over 600 nautical miles, the Lizzy could be 400 miles away, and still provide a very effective interdiction force. 

 

 

Edited July 21, 2019 by stevewinn

[DarkHunter]

On 7/20/2019 at 5:34 AM, Setton said:

And? How does that change what I said? 

True. Not especially relevant though. 

Diplomacy doesnt seem to be working so great since instead of the Grace 1 being released it's going to be detained at minimum for another month.

It is relevant to your belief that this tit for tat approach will work out fine.  A tanker not flying Iranian flags, not being owned by Iran, and not having any Iranian crew on board is stopped for breaking EU sanctions on Syria while in an EU members territorial waters and Iran responds by first making threats that if this tanker isnt immediately released they will seize a UK tanker then they go ahead and seize two tankers, releasing one, with the one they captured being in Omani territorial waters. 

So in your mind the UK detaining a Russian/UAE tanker, the company seems Russian but based in the UAE so not clear exactly who owns it and I'm too lazy to really dig into it, gives Iran permission to capture a UK tanker in another nation's waters.

Quote

I have. I think it's unlikely at best. That's when we would have to respond with force. At the moment, we would be the ones escalating the situation. Iran clearly don't want an escalation. Otherwise why release the second ship? 

I wonder if the likes of and then have considered the possibility they might be wrong. 

So once again your whole argument breaks down to what you feel, so you feel it's unlikely at best but if you are wrong then a small military engagement that would be isolated to at most a few events which would probably just kills tens to the low hundreds at most will end with a war that will kill at minimum tens of thousands or result in essentially the UK completely compitulating to Iran.  Historically what you are feeling is best has never worked out and has lead to horrific wars that could of been easily stopped early on.  

The tanker being captured besides from being a massive embarrassment is also a massive threat to the UK.  Iran has effectively shown the royal navy is incapable of protecting UK shipping on a global scale and so far incapable of retaliating in any meaningful way to anything done to UK shipping.  If the UK doesnt do something severe like they are threatening then every UK ship is going to essentially be marked as free game to any nation that has a problem with the UK.

[Setton]

1 hour ago, DarkHunter said:

Diplomacy doesnt seem to be working so great since instead of the Grace 1 being released it's going to be detained at minimum for another month.

It is relevant to your belief that this tit for tat approach will work out fine.  A tanker not flying Iranian flags, not being owned by Iran, and not having any Iranian crew on board is stopped for breaking EU sanctions on Syria while in an EU members territorial waters and Iran responds by first making threats that if this tanker isnt immediately released they will seize a UK tanker then they go ahead and seize two tankers, releasing one, with the one they captured being in Omani territorial waters. 

So in your mind the UK detaining a Russian/UAE tanker, the company seems Russian but based in the UAE so not clear exactly who owns it and I'm too lazy to really dig into it, gives Iran permission to capture a UK tanker in another nation's waters.

So once again your whole argument breaks down to what you feel, so you feel it's unlikely at best but if you are wrong then a small military engagement that would be isolated to at most a few events which would probably just kills tens to the low hundreds at most will end with a war that will kill at minimum tens of thousands or result in essentially the UK completely compitulating to Iran.  Historically what you are feeling is best has never worked out and has lead to horrific wars that could of been easily stopped early on.  

The tanker being captured besides from being a massive embarrassment is also a massive threat to the UK.  Iran has effectively shown the royal navy is incapable of protecting UK shipping on a global scale and so far incapable of retaliating in any meaningful way to anything done to UK shipping.  If the UK doesnt do something severe like they are threatening then every UK ship is going to essentially be marked as free game to any nation that has a problem with the UK.

Not belief or feeling but knowledge, understanding and analysis of the situation. 

[DarkHunter]

26 minutes ago, Setton said:

Not belief or feeling but knowledge, understanding and analysis of the situation. 

Provided no proof and no deeper analysis other then your own personal thoughts and feelings. 

You can try to make it sound as important as you want but ultimately it's still just your feelings and opinion.

[+and-then]

1 hour ago, DarkHunter said:

Provided no proof and no deeper analysis other then your own personal thoughts and feelings. 

You can try to make it sound as important as you want but ultimately it's still just your feelings and opinion.

And, just as in the lead-up to WWII, it ultimately is about not having the nerve to stand up to aggression.  It always, ALWAYS leads to the same destination.  By trying to play nice with these fanatics and maintain the free flow of oil, we will eventually be faced with sunken tankers, mines and terror cells popping around the globe - mostly in the West.  Those old men need to know that not only will their military might be crushed, but they will also lose power and they personally will be found and killed.  Alternatively, they can come to the table, give up their plans and infrastructure for nukes and rejoin the world community with all the benefits that will accrue to them.  The fact that they won't is a very clear indication of where their true intentions lie.

[DarkHunter]

In Iran it seems some members of the Iranian parliament are feeling emboldened by their recent success on capturing a UK tanker and are now talking about passing a law that would put tariffs on all UK and US ships that pass through the straits of Hormuz.

https://mobile.twitter.com/patrickwintour/status/1152932176146698240

Also the embarrassment to the royal navy keeps coming as a radio communication has been released to the public, seems the Montrose was in radio contact with at least one of the Iranian vessels involved in the capture and after asking if it was planning on stopping the tanker illegally it did nothing as the tanker was captured.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.com/news/amp/uk-49061675

Edited July 21, 2019 by DarkHunter

[DarkHunter]

Now it's all ships and not just UK and US ships.

https://en.mehrnews.com/news/147885/MPs-call-for-charging-foreign-ships-a-toll-to-cross-Strait-of

[Setton]

3 hours ago, DarkHunter said:

Provided no proof and no deeper analysis other then your own personal thoughts and feelings. 

You can try to make it sound as important as you want but ultimately it's still just your feelings and opinion.

If thats your belief, feel free to believe it. 

[A rather obscure Bassoon]

14 hours ago, and then said:

It makes sense except for the possibility that the Iranians would then resort to attacking and sinking the vessels instead.  It would be an environmental nightmare at best.

Just enough to fire warning shots, not even Putin could defend Iran if they started sinking Tankers regardless whatever your position on Iran they would become worldwide pariah's.

[Black Red Devil]

19 hours ago, and then said:

Unfortunately, a nuclear-armed Iran will be a problem for the whole planet Israel, eventually.  The fools that dispute Iran's desire for the bomb or worse, support them having it, are functioning on a level of hate for the current world order that will eventually destroy THEM and their futures.  I have zero sympathies for such disgusting, childish, adult-wannabes. 

These people cannot seem to grasp the clear lessons of history that have been repeated through the ages.  The strong abuse the weak and always have done.  Iran deems itself ready to take advantage of the weakness of the fools that lead the west and if America doesn't force them to the table, Israel will eventually use nukes on them when Iran comes against her people.  The nonsense about Iran being pacifist is something only people with child-like intellects would believe.  They seem to believe that if they just refuse to admit it, Iran will go away.  Millions felt the same way in Europe when Hitler was on the march.  The song remains the same and we seem fated to relearn the same lessons over and over.

Changed that part for you.  Now, don't you ever go and relinquish those tunnel vision beliefs.  After all, your whole existential mindset in UM has been to support, protect and serve the greater deeds of the Zionist project.  Going even to lengths in advocating for the death and destruction of millions of civilians and casualties of thousands of American soldiers in unnecessary wars, in support of Israel's goals.  The only disgusting person and wannabe here is you .You're just a useful patsy, dressed up for all the Zionist occasions.    

[Space Commander Travis]

23 hours ago, RoofGardener said:

I had no idea that the Royal Navy was at such a low ebb (albeit temporarily). 

Still, the Iranian Navy (including the Islamic Guard) are pretty feeble. Their frigates and corvettes rely almost exclusively on the C802 anti-shipping missile, which we have proven we are able to shoot down. And they don't have thousands of fast craft, they only have hundreds, many of which are only armed with a machine gun. 

It's a real shame about big lizzy. She wouldn't need to be anywhere near the gulf in order for her F-35's to support naval operations against Iran. With a combat range of over 600 nautical miles, the Lizzy could be 400 miles away, and still provide a very effective interdiction force. 

I would remind the honourable member that numbers of warships, on the Iranian side at any rate, are irrelevant, given that mobile anti-shipping missile batteries positioned along the coast can be relocated at a moment's notice, and therefore it's impossible to plot their positions beforehand, and by the time they've fired they can be on the move somewhere else by the time anyone gets around to retaliating. Therefore Iran's small numbers of small warships need be neither here nor there.

 And what difference Big Lizzie's, how many is it, nine F-35 superjets would make compared with the USAF's hundreds of tactical aircraft and heavy bombers based just the other side of the Gulf is extremly negligible. 

Or are you envisaging this being a purely Brit response to aggression, much like the Falklands? 

Edited July 22, 2019 by Dumbledore the Awesome

[Space Commander Travis]

10 hours ago, and then said:

And, just as in the lead-up to WWII, it ultimately is about not having the nerve to stand up to aggression. 

*bong* subtle Hitler analogy, well done 

 

And for the rest of your deranged ravings, you really have relinquished all pretence of being a member of civilized society haven't you.

Edited July 22, 2019 by Dumbledore the Awesome

[Space Commander Travis]

On 21/07/2019 at 4:01 AM, and then said:

The strong abuse the weak and always have done. 

Are you talking about your beloved country here? 

 

(I mean Israel, of course.) 

[Space Commander Travis]

* In other news, the Government is hldting a meeting of the top secret Cobra emergency committee about the unfolding crisis.  I hear they're even instructed Q to be there. They're hoping to be able to get hold of Bond somewhere, but I believe he's currently on holiday in the Maldives. The Government is rushing to get him back to London as quickly as possible, but it's proving not as easy as they hoped, since Easyjet doesn't fly that far and they're not sure their budget can run to a short-notice economy class ticket on British Airways. 

[RoofGardener]

41 minutes ago, Dumbledore the Awesome said:

I would remind the honourable member that numbers of warships, on the Iranian side at any rate, are irrelevant, given that mobile anti-shipping missile batteries positioned along the coast can be relocated at a moment's notice, and therefore it's impossible to plot their positions beforehand, and by the time they've fired they can be on the move somewhere else by the time anyone gets around to retaliating. Therefore Iran's small numbers of small warships need be neither here nor there.

 And what difference Big Lizzie's, how many is it, nine F-35 superjets would make compared with the USAF's hundreds of tactical aircraft and heavy bombers based just the other side of the Gulf is extremly negligible. 

Or are you envisaging this being a purely Brit response to aggression, much like the Falklands? 

I was thinking in terms of British warships escorting British flagged ships through the straits. 

If Iran where to launch anti-shipping missiles against ships in international waters, then that would change the dynamic of the situation entirely. It would attract international condemnation, and possibly even an international military response. It would certainly isolate Iran diplomatically, and scupper any chance of having the sanctions against it lifted. Indeed, it would become something of a pariah state, comparable with North Korea.

I agree with @and then; it's all about having the nerve - and will - to stand up to aggression. A half-dozen Frigates or so could act as an effective convoy escort, PROVIDING they are allowed to shoot at Iranian attack craft behaving aggressively in international waters. 

Edited July 22, 2019 by RoofGardener

[Unusual Tournament]

40 minutes ago, RoofGardener said:

I was thinking in terms of British warships escorting British flagged ships through the straits. 

If Iran where to launch anti-shipping missiles against ships in international waters, then that would change the dynamic of the situation entirely. It would attract international condemnation, and possibly even an international military response. It would certainly isolate Iran diplomatically, and scupper any chance of having the sanctions against it lifted. Indeed, it would become something of a pariah state, comparable with North Korea.

I agree with @and then; it's all about having the nerve - and will - to stand up to aggression. A half-dozen Frigates or so could act as an effective convoy escort, PROVIDING they are allowed to shoot at Iranian attack craft behaving aggressively in international waters. 

No amount of allied shipping is gonna make that stretch of sea safe. Air and missile strikes are the only way. 

[Alchopwn]

9 hours ago, Black Red Devil said:

Changed that part for you.  Now, don't you ever go and relinquish those tunnel vision beliefs.  After all, your whole existential mindset in UM has been to support, protect and serve the greater deeds of the Zionist project.  Going even to lengths in advocating for the death and destruction of millions of civilians and casualties of thousands of American soldiers in unnecessary wars, in support of Israel's goals.  The only disgusting person and wannabe here is you .You're just a useful patsy, dressed up for all the Zionist occasions.    

So basically you are an anti-Semite who wants Israel to be nuked to get your sick Nazi jollies.

[Sir Smoke aLot]

It took some time but right now we are certain that Iran managed to stop smuggling operation by seizure of one of the tankers. I expect others to came out with statements, clear statements and not political stunts.

''

Panama, July 21 (Prensa Latina) The Panamanian Maritime Administration (AMP) condemned on Sunday the use of ships chartered by Panama for illegal acts, and confirmed that the oil tanker RIAH was detained by Iran because it was smuggling oil.

 

'We categorically condemn the use of vessels with a Panamanian flag for illicit acts that threaten the safety of human life; and those who clearly violate the laws, conventions and international agreements will be sanctioned and will run the risk that the ship is canceled from the Registry,' the AMP underscored in a statement.''

 

So does the free world now speak as an attorney of smugglers? Or what sick game is that? For weeks Iran was condemned because they stopped smuggling operation which lasted for years

 

13 hours ago, DarkHunter said:

Now it's all ships and not just UK and US ships.

https://en.mehrnews.com/news/147885/MPs-call-for-charging-foreign-ships-a-toll-to-cross-Strait-of

It was expected. There are such elements in Iran (and in every nation) and by isolating Iran - by pressuring it's people, USA has managed to make radical voice with radical measures in Iran heard. I just hope it wont succeed.

People tend to chose 'populism inflated radicals' in times like this. Fascism might be on the rise again but i won't blame Iran, it wasn't root cause of it.

[RoofGardener]

Yeeeeessss... umm... WAS the Riah smuggling oil, or is the Panamanian Registration Authority just reacting to information supplied by Iran ?

[stevewinn]

HMS Montrose was just 10Mins short of reaching the tanker before Iranians boarded and turned into Iranian waters. 

Meanwhile HMS Kent prepares.