Twister_Ken
Well-Known Member
Invitation to visit GCHQ, Cheltenham - 14 March 2007. Includes a general GCHQ overview, specific weapons briefs and a tour of the facilities
Damn, missed it.
Damn, missed it.
Seems the RN uses cheapo Garmin GPS in Gulf
- Thread starter Twister_Ken
- Start date
cliffordpope
Well-Known Member
It seems a bit foolhardy sending two such lightly-armed boats off on the mission so close to a (disputed) border.
Why wasn't the parent ship close enough to give covering fire in the event of trouble? Or isn't the Senior Service armed any more?
Why wasn't the parent ship close enough to give covering fire in the event of trouble? Or isn't the Senior Service armed any more?
john_morris_uk
Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
It seems a bit foolhardy sending two such lightly-armed boats off on the mission so close to a (disputed) border.
Why wasn't the parent ship close enough to give covering fire in the event of trouble? Or isn't the Senior Service armed any more?
[/ QUOTE ]I think you will find from the previous press releases that the (searched) ship was anchored in water too shallow for the Frigate to operate in. Search parties are lightly armed as they are searching another nations vessel in international or friendly waters. As a general rule they search with the co-operation of the vessel being searched.
The question regarding the armament of the the CORNWALL is too silly to deserve an answer. However, suffice to say she has enough firepower to sink most if not all of many countries entire Navies whilst defending herself from air, subsurface, and surface attack at the same time.
If she was close enough - and I cannot comment whether she was or wasn't. What did you expect her to do? The target was a merchant ship flagged in India, with first one Iranian gunboat being friendly, then very quickly half a dozen gunboats being not very friendly.
How are you going to make sure you only shoot those who you want to shoot? At what stage do you open fire? How do you know you are not shooting at your own sailors/marines being held on one of the Iranian boats?
Bloody armchair generals...
Please note that this is NOT an offical MOD response - purely a personal comment from an 'insiders perspective!!
It seems a bit foolhardy sending two such lightly-armed boats off on the mission so close to a (disputed) border.
Why wasn't the parent ship close enough to give covering fire in the event of trouble? Or isn't the Senior Service armed any more?
[/ QUOTE ]I think you will find from the previous press releases that the (searched) ship was anchored in water too shallow for the Frigate to operate in. Search parties are lightly armed as they are searching another nations vessel in international or friendly waters. As a general rule they search with the co-operation of the vessel being searched.
The question regarding the armament of the the CORNWALL is too silly to deserve an answer. However, suffice to say she has enough firepower to sink most if not all of many countries entire Navies whilst defending herself from air, subsurface, and surface attack at the same time.
If she was close enough - and I cannot comment whether she was or wasn't. What did you expect her to do? The target was a merchant ship flagged in India, with first one Iranian gunboat being friendly, then very quickly half a dozen gunboats being not very friendly.
How are you going to make sure you only shoot those who you want to shoot? At what stage do you open fire? How do you know you are not shooting at your own sailors/marines being held on one of the Iranian boats?
Bloody armchair generals...
Please note that this is NOT an offical MOD response - purely a personal comment from an 'insiders perspective!!
copterdoctor
Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
The more expensive MilSpec kit will be, of course, NOT handheld but fitted. As it is on the mothership. Many will have cheap 'civilian' handhelds as backup devices - and why not!
[/ QUOTE ]
The reason for not having cheap hand helds is because the MoD advises servicmen not to have civilian hand helds on operations for "security reasons". That warning is available on the same MoD website that published the photo in question oops.
I bet the MoD are glad most servicmen have more sense than to heed the MoD!
The more expensive MilSpec kit will be, of course, NOT handheld but fitted. As it is on the mothership. Many will have cheap 'civilian' handhelds as backup devices - and why not!
[/ QUOTE ]
The reason for not having cheap hand helds is because the MoD advises servicmen not to have civilian hand helds on operations for "security reasons". That warning is available on the same MoD website that published the photo in question oops.
I bet the MoD are glad most servicmen have more sense than to heed the MoD!
tome
Well-Known Member
I'll bet they will be much more cautious about allowing search parties to wander without adequate top cover in future
HoratioHB
Well-Known Member
Personally I don't see why we shouldn't find an Iranian gunboat in the area, arrest it, lie about its position, and then parade the crew on UK TV. See how they like it ! But can you see Blair having the B***S to do it?
john_morris_uk
Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
I'll bet they will be much more cautious about allowing search parties to wander without adequate top cover in future
[/ QUOTE ]Its all a matter or risk assessment. You may have seen that the Telegraph reported that the ship had conducted 66 simlar searches in the previous two weeks.
Of course hindsight is 20:20.
I have just been in touch with a friend onboard and he reports that the ship is determined to get on with its work. He also notes that the ship’s motto is ‘One and All’, and he believes that is what applies now more than ever to those involved.
I will go back to trying to resist commenting...
I'll bet they will be much more cautious about allowing search parties to wander without adequate top cover in future
[/ QUOTE ]Its all a matter or risk assessment. You may have seen that the Telegraph reported that the ship had conducted 66 simlar searches in the previous two weeks.
Of course hindsight is 20:20.
I have just been in touch with a friend onboard and he reports that the ship is determined to get on with its work. He also notes that the ship’s motto is ‘One and All’, and he believes that is what applies now more than ever to those involved.
I will go back to trying to resist commenting...
tome
Well-Known Member
Agree about hindsight
I expect there's a fair bit of concern felt on board. As you'll know very well, a ships crew is a very tight little community. I do hope it doesn't draw out much longer for their sakes
I expect there's a fair bit of concern felt on board. As you'll know very well, a ships crew is a very tight little community. I do hope it doesn't draw out much longer for their sakes
poter
Well-Known Member
Exactly the point.....
......all these men & women are doing is their job. They are not there to provide the daily star with extra sensationalist stories.
The BLiar government are also not above using these young men & women for their own political ends, dont forget there is an election in the offing, so an international crisis is great at deflecting thoughts away from domestic policy!!!
It also makes me really angry when all the exposure is on one young professional sailor, she is there to do a job, just like the rest of the team. The fact that the Iran government is using these sailors for propaganda is only to be expected, do not forget most of the politicians/clerics in power were educated here or in the states, so they know EXACTLY what the responses will be, they are playing this to a tee, not that I would in anyway agree with the tactics being used. Its just that we (westerners) have no understanding at all of the culture in the middle east, & what they think, so applying our rules is not the way out.
poter
......all these men & women are doing is their job. They are not there to provide the daily star with extra sensationalist stories.
The BLiar government are also not above using these young men & women for their own political ends, dont forget there is an election in the offing, so an international crisis is great at deflecting thoughts away from domestic policy!!!
It also makes me really angry when all the exposure is on one young professional sailor, she is there to do a job, just like the rest of the team. The fact that the Iran government is using these sailors for propaganda is only to be expected, do not forget most of the politicians/clerics in power were educated here or in the states, so they know EXACTLY what the responses will be, they are playing this to a tee, not that I would in anyway agree with the tactics being used. Its just that we (westerners) have no understanding at all of the culture in the middle east, & what they think, so applying our rules is not the way out.
poter
Twister_Ken
Well-Known Member
Re: Exactly the point.....
My way out would be to say "If you want to keep your navy, give us back our sailors" but that maybe a bit gung-ho for modern governments, except the Israelis.
My way out would be to say "If you want to keep your navy, give us back our sailors" but that maybe a bit gung-ho for modern governments, except the Israelis.
Oen
Well-Known Member
Be careful - a competent analyst can learn a lot from the built-in memory on a typical hand-held GPS...
Gunfleet
Well-Known Member
Ah yes. Olive Drab. I think I dated her in the 60s
mel80
Well-Known Member
Re: Exactly the point.....
[ QUOTE ]
My way out would be to say "If you want to keep your navy, give us back our sailors" ...
[/ QUOTE ]
Great plan. It worked so well for the Israelis in lebanon....
[ QUOTE ]
My way out would be to say "If you want to keep your navy, give us back our sailors" ...
[/ QUOTE ]
Great plan. It worked so well for the Israelis in lebanon....
Twister_Ken
Well-Known Member
Re: Exactly the point.....
Probably easier to find ships than Hisbollah.
If not, what are we paying the RN for?
Probably easier to find ships than Hisbollah.
If not, what are we paying the RN for?
mel80
Well-Known Member
Exactly the point.....
You are advocating starting a war with Iran. I have a number of issues with this.
1. It would, to a large extent, legitimise the continued detention of the RN personel (as POWs).
2. It would also legitimise direct Iranian action in Iraq, and let's face it; life is difficult enough for our forces there as it is.
3. Iran has an army that is nearly 3 times the size of ours. There are some who would consider starting a war with them to be a bit irresponsible, especially given our existing commitments in the region.
4. (And most importantly). It would make the release of the prisoners far less likely as it would be impossible for Iran to accomplish without appearing weak. I imagine that not looking weak is far more important to political leaders in Iran than their Navy, given the magnitude of internal dissent.
5. Nobody doubted that Israel could destroy hezbollahs military infrastructure prior to the 2006 war. In the end, they could not even accomplish this, despite overwhelming military superiority. Overestiamte the importance of technological advantage at your peril.
You are advocating starting a war with Iran. I have a number of issues with this.
1. It would, to a large extent, legitimise the continued detention of the RN personel (as POWs).
2. It would also legitimise direct Iranian action in Iraq, and let's face it; life is difficult enough for our forces there as it is.
3. Iran has an army that is nearly 3 times the size of ours. There are some who would consider starting a war with them to be a bit irresponsible, especially given our existing commitments in the region.
4. (And most importantly). It would make the release of the prisoners far less likely as it would be impossible for Iran to accomplish without appearing weak. I imagine that not looking weak is far more important to political leaders in Iran than their Navy, given the magnitude of internal dissent.
5. Nobody doubted that Israel could destroy hezbollahs military infrastructure prior to the 2006 war. In the end, they could not even accomplish this, despite overwhelming military superiority. Overestiamte the importance of technological advantage at your peril.
Twister_Ken
Well-Known Member
Re: Exactly the point.....
Wimp!
Oh, and I thought the idea of having Trident was so that weaker nations wouldn't mess with us.
Wimp!
Oh, and I thought the idea of having Trident was so that weaker nations wouldn't mess with us.
mel80
Well-Known Member
Re: Exactly the point.....
The point of a deterent is that you set out in advance the circumstances under which it would be used.
It also has to be a deterent. In this case, I imagine that the prospect of an armed conflict with the UK (so long as it was instigated by us) is somthing that the Iranians would relish. After all, there is no realistic prospect of total defeat, and they stand to gain a huge amount politically and strategically. Indeed, I wouldn't be surprised if some sort of military response is what they are really aiming for with this.
The point of a deterent is that you set out in advance the circumstances under which it would be used.
It also has to be a deterent. In this case, I imagine that the prospect of an armed conflict with the UK (so long as it was instigated by us) is somthing that the Iranians would relish. After all, there is no realistic prospect of total defeat, and they stand to gain a huge amount politically and strategically. Indeed, I wouldn't be surprised if some sort of military response is what they are really aiming for with this.
Rabbie
Well-Known Member
Anything to oblige - http://www.amazon.co.uk/Garmin-010-00190-42-eTrex-Camo-GPS/dp/B000059ZYF