# Tanker War 2.0



## tomahawk6 (14 Jun 2019)

The Iranians deployed sea mines in the past resulting in a short war in the Gulf of Oman.The article has an image showing a mine being removed from a tanker.

https://www.stripes.com/news/middle-east/us-says-iran-removed-unexploded-mine-from-oil-tanker-1.585942


----------



## tomahawk6 (14 Jun 2019)

The Iranians don't want to talk so I suspect that some retaliation may be necessary.


----------



## Lumber (14 Jun 2019)

Something just doesn't smell right. 

For starters, I just don't see what Iran has to gain from this.

Second, limpet mines are supposed to go UNDER a vessel. They're placed their by divers in a stealthy operations. These mines were placed on the hull ABOVE the water line, which makes no sense, but more importantly, how did the crew of the vessel not notice something being placed on their hull? Or, maybe they did; we haven't heard any "official statements" from the crew, have we? 

Third, the Iranian have to know just how much of a presence the US has in the area. They're hot headed, but not retarded. Did they really think they could remove the remaining mine (if it was them) without being noticed?

I guess what I'm _insinuating _is that it wasn't the Iranians, but someone who wants it to look like it was the Iranians... and that does seem like a bit of false flag conspiracy level insinuation... I'm not really saying I believe that's the case, but the narrative doesn't seem to fit a logical examination of the facts so far... at least not yet.


----------



## Old Sweat (14 Jun 2019)

Lumber said:
			
		

> Something just doesn't smell right.
> 
> For starters, I just don't see what Iran has to gain from this.
> 
> ...



Thanks for that, Lumber. I had some doubts about the incidents, including the method of attacks. Being a pongo from a long way back, I decided to not demonstrate my ignorance, but my BS detector was ringing. Maybe it was meant as a demonstration of motive and opportunity, but not of method.


----------



## YZT580 (14 Jun 2019)

placing mines above the waterline means terror, not destruction and carries the same message.  The Iranians claim that they can shut off traffic whenever they wish and they (if it was them) just proved it.  A cheap message with not oil slicks washing up on their own coastline.


----------



## QV (14 Jun 2019)

Yes, the seems like a message is being sent.  Next time, the mines will be below the water line.


----------



## Lumber (14 Jun 2019)

Japanese owners of the tanker refute Pompeo's statements:

https://www.thedailybeast.com/japanese-oil-tanker-owner-says-us-is-wrong-about-gulf-attack


----------



## Colin Parkinson (14 Jun 2019)

It's possible the watch was sloppily and allowed a boat to approach unchallenged, so better for insurance purposes to claim a missile attack. A close inspection will pinpoint the likely cause. A small rubber boat could get alongside a slow moving tanker without being seen fairly easily.


----------



## Retired AF Guy (14 Jun 2019)

Lumber said:
			
		

> Something just doesn't smell right.
> 
> For starters, I just don't see what Iran has to gain from this.



On the other hand the Saudi's would love to drag the US into a shooting war with Iran.


----------



## Spencer100 (14 Jun 2019)

This whole thing smells.....


----------



## Journeyman (14 Jun 2019)

Retired AF Guy said:
			
		

> On the other hand the Saudi's would love to drag the US into a shooting war with Iran.


So would John Bolton


----------



## Retired AF Guy (14 Jun 2019)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> So would John Bolton



That is true.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (14 Jun 2019)

Lumber said:
			
		

> Something just doesn't smell right.
> 
> For starters, I just don't see what Iran has to gain from this.
> 
> ...



The Iranians are not monolithic, the regime has competing factions, getting the US to attack might well serve the interests of one of those factions. As for placement, try placing a limpet on a moving ship underwater? Likely they were placed by a team in a small rubber boat at night. The watch would be at best 1 officers and two seaman, with one doing rounds or other tasks, they be watching for larger vessels, fishing boats and up. So placing them would be relatively easy. Having one not go off is bad, as the device would provide a lot of clues of origin, whereas the exploding ones are likely to leave few clues other than explosive residue. So it's not surprising they came back for it. Considering the nonchalant way they removed it, I expect they were familiar with the device.


----------



## The Bread Guy (15 Jun 2019)

A bit on what we know, and don't know, from folks who deal with OSINT all the time - shared under the fair dealing provisions of Canada's _Copyright Act_  ...


> *Was Iran Behind the Oman Tanker Attacks? A Look at the Evidence*
> _Internet databases confirm much about the incident, but the Trump administration hasn’t provided convincing evidence of Tehran’s culpability._
> 
> _By Eliot Higgins
> ...


----------



## Retired AF Guy (15 Jun 2019)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> A bit on what we know, and don't know, from folks who deal with OSINT all the time - shared under the fair dealing provisions of Canada's _Copyright Act_  ...



Speaking of the Marine Traffic website, here is a PDF document I put together yesterday afternoon using data from their website. The first two slides shows the tracks of the two ships as they left the Persian/Arabian Gulf and positions when attacked. The third slide shows the positions of the two ships as of yesterday afternoon. The labels and arrows are my additions. You can't tell in the third slide, but there are actually a couple tug boats assisting the ships.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (15 Jun 2019)

I don't like the limpet mine theory all that much.

I am having difficulty with two moving tankers, from two different origin ports in the gulf, being attacked after just completing a straits of Hormuz transit, 51 mins apart, by mines attached to the side of the ship.

I have not yet seen a convincing theory of how the mines got on the ships.

The truth will come out, once the ships get to a port and they can be forensically examined.


----------



## Old Sweat (15 Jun 2019)

Let's say there had been an attack, or two, by an unnamed enemy. What is the better tactic to defend against it? Is it a convoy system, or a blockade, or a combination of both, or what?


----------



## SeaKingTacco (15 Jun 2019)

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> Let's say there had been an attack, or two, by an unnamed enemy. What is the better tactic to defend against it? Is it a convoy system, or a blockade, or a combination of both, or what?



The method of defence depends entirely on the method of attack.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (15 Jun 2019)

Not really enough room there for a convoy and then it's at risk of shorebased Anti-ship missiles for part of the route. If you check out AIS data for the area you can see the inbound route hugs the Iranian coast. Not hard for a "fishing boat" to deploy some rubber boats at night to target a slow moving tanker (current speeds seem to be 7-14kts) plus anchored/stationary ones. With all merchant ship blurting out AIS data, the "fishing boat" would easily be able to pick a target with nothing more than a internet link.

https://www.marinetraffic.com/en/ais/home/centerx:52.5/centery:28.2/zoom:7


----------



## tomahawk6 (15 Jun 2019)

Prior to the attack on the tankers the Iranians fired a SAM at a US MQ9 Reaper but it missed.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/iranians-fired-missile-at-us-drone-prior-to-tanker-attack-us-official-says/ar-AACTdip?ocid=spartanntp


----------



## Journeyman (15 Jun 2019)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Prior to the attack on the tankers the Iranians fired a SAK at a US MQ9 Reaper but it missed.


That is stated as an unassailable fact, when it's actually a claim made by an 'unnamed US official.'  It took the government a day and a half to 'remember' that detail, plus the added pronouncement that another MQ9 had been shot down "in the days prior" by Iranian-backed Houthi rebels -- two claims made only once global media started expressing doubts about the American version of the tanker attack events.

So, not foreign shipping, but TWO American military aircraft attacked.... *with absolutely no US outrage*.  To quote a sailor:


			
				Lumber said:
			
		

> Something just doesn't smell right.




 #Charlie Wilson's John Bolton's War


----------



## tomahawk6 (15 Jun 2019)

When all the necessary pieces are in place you will see a US armed response.


----------



## Jarnhamar (15 Jun 2019)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> When all the necessary pieces are in place you will see a US armed response.



With the USS Maddox leading the charge perhaps?


----------



## Edward Campbell (15 Jun 2019)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> That is stated as an unassailable fact, when it's actually a claim made by an 'unnamed US official.'  It took the government a day and a half to 'remember' that detail, plus the added pronouncement that another MQ9 had been shot down "in the days prior" by Iranian-backed Houthi rebels -- two claims made only once global media started expressing doubts about the American version of the tanker attack events.
> 
> So, not foreign shipping, but TWO American military aircraft attacked.... *with absolutely no US outrage*.  To quote a sailor:
> 
> #Charlie Wilson's John Bolton's War




And, in _*Foreign Affairs*_, Ilan Goldenberg of the _Center for a New American Security_ suggests *What a War With Iran Would Look Like*. He posits one scenario in which "the United States faces a choice: continue the tit-for-tat escalation or overwhelm the enemy and destroy as much of its military capabilities as possible, as the United States did during Operation Desert Storm against Iraq in 1991. The Pentagon recommends “going big” so as not to leave U.S. forces vulnerable to further Iranian attacks. Bolton and U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo support the plan. Trump agrees, seeing a large-scale assault as the only way to prevent humiliation.

The United States sends some 120,000 troops to its bases in the Middle East, a figure approaching the 150,000 to 180,000 troops deployed to Iraq at any given point from 2003 to 2008. American aircraft attack conventional Iranian targets and much of Iran’s nuclear infrastructure in Natanz, Fordow, Arak, and Esfahan. For now, the military does not start a ground invasion or seek to topple the regime in Tehran, but ground forces are sent to the region, ready to invade if necessary. 

Iran’s military is soon overwhelmed, but not before mounting a powerful, all-out counterattack. It steps up mining and swarming small-boat attacks on U.S. forces in the Persian Gulf. Missile attacks, cyberattacks, and other acts of sabotage against Gulf oil facilities send global oil prices skyrocketing for weeks or months, perhaps to $150 or more per barrel. Iran launches as many missiles as it can at U.S. military bases. Many of the missiles miss, but some do not. Iran’s proxies target U.S. troops in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria, and Iranian-backed Houthi rebels in Yemen increase their rocket attacks against Saudi Arabia. Iran may even attempt terrorist attacks on U.S. embassies or military facilities around the globe—but will likely fail, as such attacks are difficult to execute successfully.

He concludes that "Even short of such worst-case scenarios, any war with Iran would tie down the United States in yet another Middle Eastern conflict for years to come. The war and its aftermath would likely cost hundreds of billions of dollars and hobble not just Trump but future U.S. presidents. Such a commitment would mean the end of the United States’ purported shift to great-power competition with Russia and China."


----------



## Brad Sallows (15 Jun 2019)

Or: a handful of weeks destroying most of the Iranian air force, naval forces, and critical infrastructure, followed by a ceasefire offer.


----------



## Jarnhamar (15 Jun 2019)

[quote author=E.R. Campbell]

He concludes that "Even short of such worst-case scenarios, any war with Iran would tie down the United States in yet another Middle Eastern conflict for years to come. The war and its aftermath would likely cost hundreds of billions of dollars and hobble not just Trump but future U.S. presidents. Such a commitment would mean the end of the United States’ purported shift to great-power competition with Russia and China."
[/quote]

I had it explained to me that Iran knows the USA has Middle East fatigue so their plan is to wait the US out. They already have a foothold in Iraq, both politically and with the SMGs. All the pro-Iran militias. Iran supposedly put some kind of moratorium on attacking US and allied members (to the militia groups) to try and get the US out faster.


----------



## brihard (15 Jun 2019)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> I had it explained to me that Iran knows the USA has Middle East fatigue so their plan is to wait the US out. They already have a foothold in Iraq, both politically and with the SMGs. All the pro-Iran militias. Iran supposedly put some kind of moratorium on attacking US and allied members (to the militia groups) to try and get the US out faster.



“They have the watches. We have the time.”


----------



## Lumber (15 Jun 2019)

Wait... So if Trump were to do this (attack Iran), it would potentially be  aboon to Russia? Say it ain't so...


----------



## tomahawk6 (15 Jun 2019)

Operation Preying Mantis 1988. I think this type of op may play out sooner than later. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Praying_Mantis


----------



## Brad Sallows (15 Jun 2019)

Trump hasn't established a pattern as a warmongerer, but he is sometimes prone to adopting the course of action recommended by the most recent person who made a case to him.  The risk of war originates not with Trump.  More oversight of what the executive agencies are peddling rather than less is warranted.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (15 Jun 2019)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> I had it explained to me that Iran knows the USA has Middle East fatigue so their plan is to wait the US out. They already have a foothold in Iraq, both politically and with the SMGs. All the pro-Iran militias. Iran supposedly put some kind of moratorium on attacking US and allied members (to the militia groups) to try and get the US out faster.



From what I heard and read, the Iranian regime is made up of competing factions, so while such an order may go out, eventually one of the factions/groups are going to say "eff this" and conduct an attack of some sort.

If I was the US, I would start by attacking Iranian Proxy groups.


----------



## Edward Campbell (15 Jun 2019)

Colin P said:
			
		

> From what I heard and read, the Iranian regime is made up of competing factions, so while such an order may go out, eventually one of the factions/groups are going to say "eff this" and conduct an attack of some sort.
> 
> If I was the US, I would start by attacking Iranian Proxy groups.



Or one might say:

From what I heard and read, the Iranian American regime is made up of competing factions, so while such an order may go out, eventually one of the factions/groups are going to say "eff this" and conduct an attack of some sort.

If I was the US Iran, I would start by attacking Iranian American Proxy groups government in the region.


----------



## tomahawk6 (15 Jun 2019)

SA weighs in. 

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/saudi-crown-prince-accuses-iran-of-twin-tanker-attacks/ar-AACW1Y7?ocid=spartanntp


----------



## Colin Parkinson (15 Jun 2019)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Or one might say:
> 
> From what I heard and read, the Iranian American regime is made up of competing factions, so while such an order may go out, eventually one of the factions/groups are going to say "eff this" and conduct an attack of some sort.
> 
> If I was the US Iran, I would start by attacking Iranian American Proxy groups government in the region.



The main two "factions" in the US are the State Department and the Pentagon, they see each other as the major opponent of the other. However the US military will not be attacking without orders. Iran has been fighting with US proxy groups for quite sometime. However there are quite few Iranian proxy groups that are quite exposed both in Iraq and Syria, that could suffer serious losses if the US decided to go after them without any warning. If you watch the ANNA and other video's you see a lot of of those groups have terrible Signal discipline and use commercial radios for comms. I suspect and hope the US have been quietly listening and tracking those proxy HQ's and leaders for such an occasion.


----------



## Edward Campbell (16 Jun 2019)

Saw this video, from _Al Jazeera_, on another website.


P.S. I find _Al Jazeera_'s news mostly "fair and balanced."


----------



## Journeyman (16 Jun 2019)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> P.S. I find _Al Jazeera_'s news mostly "fair and balanced."


Ditto.  It's one of my start-the-day, over coffee, checks of the overnight traffic.   :nod:


----------



## Lumber (16 Jun 2019)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Ditto.  It's one of my start-the-day, over coffee, checks of the overnight traffic.   :nod:



I usually start with cbc, CNN and fox for their pure entertainment value, but then I finish off with AJ, WP, BBC and Reuters for a more unbiased take on actual news. AJ has been one of the best (surprisingly) news outlets I've enjoyed so far.

(it's actually very interesting jumping between fox News and CNN and seeing which site had which story at the top, and when, as well as seeing the different spin or "flavor" that each one will put in the _same_ story... Basically, I don't go to these sites for real news, I go to watch in amusement as the US msm slowly spirals into... Whatever it is that is becoming...)


----------



## dimsum (16 Jun 2019)

Lumber said:
			
		

> I usually start with cbc, CNN and fox for their pure entertainment value, but then I finish off with AJ, WP, BBC and Reuters for a more unbiased take on actual news. AJ has been one of the best (surprisingly) news outlets I've enjoyed so far.



Agreed.  Their English service is miles ahead of most American channels.  BBC, AJ and WP/NYT, then the Guardian.


----------



## Pelorus (16 Jun 2019)

In my experience, the reality of a news org's reliability and objectivity is often more complex than can be characterized by a simple trustworthy/untrustworthy label.

Al Jazeera, for example, is generally one of the better sources for news related to the Middle East. However, there is more observable bias in stories relating to Qatar or the greater Qatar/Saudi dynamic. Knowing the background/ownership of a specific org is always helpful going in.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (17 Jun 2019)

The 10 employees working on the Norwegian-owned MT Front Altair landed in Dubai following two days in Iran, the AP reports.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (17 Jun 2019)

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7151697/Pentagon-reveals-color-pictures-says-PROVES-Iran-attacked-tankers-Gulf.html?fbclid=IwAR3nqT9xMOfBKxJl4nSOba78RqIY92YwWG7zZRCKbGWvKmI0AgNip-vwvAw


----------



## Jarnhamar (17 Jun 2019)

Colin P said:
			
		

> https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7151697/Pentagon-reveals-color-pictures-says-PROVES-Iran-attacked-tankers-Gulf.html?fbclid=IwAR3nqT9xMOfBKxJl4nSOba78RqIY92YwWG7zZRCKbGWvKmI0AgNip-vwvAw







> Among the pictures is one showing what is said to be the remnants of the removed limpet mine * and another one which shows what the military say is a handprint left by one of the Revolutionary Guards *



I'm sure they'll also find a passport from another revolutionary guard member that's dropped  in the water   :nod:


----------



## tomahawk6 (18 Jun 2019)

I am calling this thread the Pretzel Thread because everyone is twisting themselves every which way to deny Iran and its history of terror. The evidence speaks for itself sorry.


----------



## dimsum (18 Jun 2019)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> I am calling this thread the Pretzel Thread because everyone is twisting themselves every which way to deny Iran and its history of terror. The evidence speaks for itself sorry.



I'm not denying that Iran would attack a freighter.  I do think, however, that attacking a Japanese-flagged one around the same time as hosting their PM and them being one of the few buyers of Iran's oil sounds a little dumb.


----------



## brihard (18 Jun 2019)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> I am calling this thread the Pretzel Thread because everyone is twisting themselves every which way to deny Iran and its history of terror. The evidence speaks for itself sorry.



Show me one person denying Iran’s history of terror. Go ahead.

While a I wait for that- what you’re seeing here isn’t denial of history, it’s reasonable skepticism as to what is going on now, and more particularly who is behind it and why. This is a part of the world rife with internal and external conflicts, rivalries, and hatreds. It’s a part of the world which is, simply, a mess; relations and actions there take place with a chronic deficit of good faith, and there isn’t a country (or major interest) in the region that consistently operates in good faith and guilelessly, America included.

Iran is not a monolithic regime. It has factions and internal power struggles within the political and military structure. It is absolutely very possible that one of these factions, with or without the knowledge of the political leadership, carried out these attacks. I’d say it’s more likely that than something else. But it’s by no means a certainty.

What is very unclear in any of this is motive. Cui Bono? Who in Iran (or Saudi, or Qatar, or the US, etc) would stand to gain from a demonstration of the ability to smoke a couple tankers? There isn’t a clear answer to this. An attack was actually carried out on two tankers. That’s hugely provocative and highly risky.

What we cannot do is just write it off as ‘stupid’, because to whoever carried it out, it made sense to do. It was a rational act inasmuch as it serves (or is believed to serve) the strategy of whoever is guilty.

So, why? And from there, who? And now what?


----------



## Journeyman (18 Jun 2019)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> I am calling this thread the Pretzel Thread


Well then, I'll call this the 'Boy Who Cried Wolf' thread.  While previous governments would  lie in singular instances to garner international community buy-in for some endeavour (Maddox/Vietnam, WMD/Iraq),  you now have an administration with a virtually unbroken track record of compulsive lying, butt-hurt because no one believes them.


----------



## The Bread Guy (18 Jun 2019)

Dimsum said:
			
		

> ... I do think, however, that *the Iranian government ordering/sanctioning* attacking a Japanese-flagged one around the same time as hosting their PM and them being one of the few buyers of Iran's oil sounds a little dumb.


Agree with this take from Dimsum & others - it sometimes only takes a few idiots in any group to :stirpot: if they don't like what the group is doing.


----------



## Lumber (18 Jun 2019)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Agree with this take from Dimsum & others - it sometimes only takes a few idiots in any group to :stirpot: if they don't like what the group is doing.



Just how great is the disconnect in ideology, authority, and chain of command between the Republican Guard and the regular armed forces? As I understand it, both the Republican Guard and the regular military have chain of command that end with the Ayatollah. 

Could it be that the Ayatollah and the President/Government don't see eye to eye, and the Ayatollah is using the Republican Guard as his own private military to act on policies that perhaps the national legislature and government do not agree with?


----------



## Brad Sallows (18 Jun 2019)

This is an excellent time to be skeptical.


----------



## Lumber (18 Jun 2019)

I think I found the answer to my question:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/iran-has-two-naval-forces-with-separate-missions-and-commands-this-is-why/2019/06/14/ea3704a8-8ead-11e9-b08e-cfd89bd36d4e_story.html?fbclid=IwAR3068ELTZBp3Fn3hqLI8F_uAWMz6L0x2-QcIuNdTc_IXi-Kg4yjjj9f0sk&utm_term=.6ff285dcb653



> Iran’s naval forces have a split personality. There is the regular navy with conscripts and career officers with a chain of command to the defense minister and others in government.
> 
> And then there are the more elite seagoing divisions run by the Revolutionary Guard, whose commanders answer directly to the nation’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.





> *Who is in charge?*
> 
> Revolutionary Guard forces are under the direct control of Khamenei and his inner circle, who also oversee other key parts of the government, including the intelligence services.
> 
> The regular navy is also nominally under the supreme leader, who has the final word in all important military decisions. But the navy’s regular operations fall under the defense ministry and the elected leadership led by Iran’s president and parliament.


----------



## Blackadder1916 (18 Jun 2019)

The headline of this piece, which was written a few days ago before the escalation of the "evidence", is perhaps the most succinct explanation of this "he said, he said" situation.  Who could imagine that credibility is currency in the conduct of international diplomacy and credibility is lacking in both parties to this squabble.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/trump-iran-bolton-oil-tankers-persian-gulf-lies-and-war-fears


> Gulf Tanker Whodunit: Trump’s a Liar. So Are the Mullahs.
> 
> Who benefits from the attack on two fuel tankers in the Persian Gulf? Trump and Iran blame each other—but for the public, the truth is harder to find.
> 
> ...


----------



## Colin Parkinson (18 Jun 2019)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Well then, I'll call this the 'Boy Who Cried Wolf' thread.  While previous governments would  lie in singular instances to garner international community buy-in for some endeavour (Maddox/Vietnam, WMD/Iraq),  you now have an administration with a virtually unbroken track record of compulsive lying, butt-hurt because no one believes them.



Actually the US was dragged reluctantly by the French into Vietnam. You want to blame anyone for Vietnam, blame the French.


----------



## Cloud Cover (19 Jun 2019)

Colin P said:
			
		

> Actually the US was dragged reluctantly by the French into Vietnam. You want to blame anyone for Vietnam, blame the French.



I blame Hitler. If he hadn’t slapped the French around so easily in 1940, the Japanese might have hesitated in occupying Indochina. The subsequent Japanese surrender, aided by American support and inspiration to Ho Chi Min in WW2, that sped the process up.


----------



## Lumber (19 Jun 2019)

Colin P said:
			
		

> ...blame the French.



I think we can all get behind this.

 ;D


----------



## tomahawk6 (19 Jun 2019)

Lumber said:
			
		

> I think we can all get behind this.
> 
> ;D



I suppose Quebeckers   might object ? ;D


----------



## The Bread Guy (19 Jun 2019)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> I suppose Quebeckers   might object ? ;D


When it comes to the Metropolitan French, depends on the Quebecker ...


----------



## tomahawk6 (20 Jun 2019)

The Iranians have shot down a Global Hawk drone. USAF F15's have arrived in theater but I doubt they would be used should retaliation is ordered. Much easier to use ship launched missiles without risking crews. 

https://www.foxnews.com/world/us-navy-drone-shot-down-by-iranian-missile-over-strait-of-hormuz-source

https://www.foxnews.com/world/us-squadron-f15e-fighters-arrive-uae-iran-tensions


----------



## Colin Parkinson (20 Jun 2019)

Starting picking off AD systems as they light up. It's not like Iran has a huge number and they have a lot of territory to defend.


----------



## Lumber (20 Jun 2019)

Does anybody else feel like this entire affair isn't getting as much attention as it probably should considering the size of quagmire that could (will) result if they actually start shooting at each other? I mean really shooting at each other?


----------



## RHC_2_MP (20 Jun 2019)

I can't weigh in on who may have done it, but the evidence the US governement has made public is very suspect.
The images of the mine on the side of the ship show two targeted locations well above the waterline which would have had to be attached by small craft alongside the ship, the video indicates they did it in broad daylight without any care of concealment. However, the witness accounts found in the media don't mention any fast boats and in fact stated it was a projectile.
One of the pictures of the blast damage shows the main hole and several other projectile holes around the central blast hole.  I'm no combat engineer but to me it could indicate that the hull was damaged by multiple projectiles in a relatively small area which would mean the explosive detonated away from the hull and several pieces of the projectile struck the ship to start the fire.  The black and white video the US released shows a fastboat crew removing the item from the hull. The shadows on the deck of the tanker indicate it's daylight and no lighting change is visible throughout the video to indicate a fire is burning next to the craft. Additional photos released by the US show the crew of the alledged Iranian vessel in daylight, staring up at the aircraft taking the photo. This is not the behaviour i would associate with a secret mission by operators who want to remain unidentified and conceal their motives.
The evidence laid out by the US government does not match the version of events they're using to justify the military buildup.  I could be completely out to lunch too, and i'm sure someone will put me in my place in a minute...


----------



## Colin Parkinson (20 Jun 2019)

They removed the mine in daylight. I don't see any articles that state the exact time of the explosion, I would also be surprised if crew would be able to see projectiles flying at them. Most of these ships run with two people on the bridge, a deck officer and lookout, concentrating on larger marine traffic.


----------



## Brad Sallows (20 Jun 2019)

All the particular focus on whether limpet mines were placed by Iranians detracts from the two important questions:

1) What blew the hole?
2) Who is responsible?


----------



## tomahawk6 (20 Jun 2019)

We know who shot down the Global Hawk so now what level will the tit tat happen ? I think the Iranian SAM sites will be targeted and maybe throw in an IRG naval base or two.


----------



## Lumber (20 Jun 2019)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> We know who shot down the Global Hawk so now what level will the tit tat happen ? I think the Iranian SAM sites will be targeted and maybe throw in an IRG naval base or two.



Yea the Global Hawks are NOT cheap ($125 million ish), so I can't see the US NOT retaliating in some fashion. The key questions will Iran retaliate for THAT? Then will the US retaliate for THAT? and so on...


----------



## QV (20 Jun 2019)

Victor Davis Hansen has some insightful commentary on the US and Iran (and other nations) here:  

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/donald-trumps-china-iran-border-matrix/


----------



## Spencer100 (20 Jun 2019)

Picture is fake news!  LOL   

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/9337518/us-slams-irans-unprovoked-attack-on-spy-drone-as-it-doubles-down-on-claim-aircraft-was-shot-down-in-international-airspace/


----------



## Jarnhamar (20 Jun 2019)

Lumber said:
			
		

> Yea the Global Hawks are NOT cheap ($125 million ish), so I can't see the US NOT retaliating in some fashion. The key questions will Iran retaliate for THAT? Then will the US retaliate for THAT? and so on...



The US only reacts one way. Why would Iran provoke the US knowing exactly how they're going to react. What would Iran have to gain besides dead soldiers, smashed SAM sites and ruined military equipment?


----------



## Spencer100 (20 Jun 2019)

To bring the 12th Iman.  The Mahdi is coming they say. 

https://www.thoughtco.com/who-is-the-12th-imam-3555177

That could one reason...if you can call it one?  Are not the Repub Guards not Twelvers? or some of them?


----------



## Brad Sallows (20 Jun 2019)

>Why would Iran provoke the US 

Suppose (optimistically) the US is trying to change Iran's behaviour by applying diplomatic and economic pressure (eg. sanctions), while avoiding escalation to military pressure, leaving exactly one golden bridge open: retreat to being a "normal" country in the community of nations.  If Iran doesn't want to take that path, it still needs to remove the pressure.  One option is to force an escalation to military engagement in the hopes the resulting pinch to gulf oil exports will induce other nations to pressure the US to lay off.


----------



## tomahawk6 (20 Jun 2019)

The Mahdi is called Tomahawk.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (20 Jun 2019)

Spencer100 said:
			
		

> To bring the 12th Iman.  The Mahdi is coming they say.
> 
> https://www.thoughtco.com/who-is-the-12th-imam-3555177
> 
> That could one reason...if you can call it one?  Are not the Repub Guards not Twelvers? or some of them?



My understanding is that the religious core of the IRGC and Clerics are "twelvers" surrounded by normally devout believers and people into power and wealth.


----------



## tomahawk6 (20 Jun 2019)

What was Trudeau doing at the White House today? Timing was suspect. I doubt it was to offer targeting suggestions.  ;D


----------



## RocketRichard (20 Jun 2019)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> What was Trudeau doing at the White House today? Timing was suspect. I doubt it was to offer targeting suggestions.  ;D


Trying to negotiate with your president. A trying situation at the best of times one imagines. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Spencer100 (20 Jun 2019)

The timing of the RCN sail past the Taiwan Strait was very interesting.  That could not have hurt Trudeau with Trump.


----------



## tomahawk6 (21 Jun 2019)

According to the New York Times Trump approved strikes on Iranian military targets but then changed his mind. 

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/trump-approves-strikes-on-iran-but-then-abruptly-pulls-back/ar-AADaA3K?ocid=spartanntp


----------



## The Bread Guy (21 Jun 2019)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> According to the New York Times Trump approved strikes on Iranian military targets but then changed his mind.
> 
> https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/trump-approves-strikes-on-iran-but-then-abruptly-pulls-back/ar-AADaA3K?ocid=spartanntp


Confirmed by #POTUS45 (while managing to throw in a dig at past management) ...


----------



## QV (21 Jun 2019)

I like the cut of his jib.  And I love that he tweeted his rationale for his decision.  Many MSM outlets wouldn't have reported accurately on this.


----------



## Jarnhamar (21 Jun 2019)

QV said:
			
		

> I like the cut of his jib.  And I love that he tweeted his rationale for his decision.  Many MSM outlets wouldn't have reported accurately on this.



Me too. I'm really surprised. As I said the US only responds one way and in shooting down a US drone Iran knew how the US would respond so one can only surmise its exactly what they wanted.
The US didn't give them what they wanted and ended up sparing the lives of 150 some odd people who are bystanders.


----------



## daftandbarmy (21 Jun 2019)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Me too. I'm really surprised. As I said the US only responds one way and in shooting down a US drone Iran knew how the US would respond so one can only surmise its exactly what they wanted.
> The US didn't give them what they wanted and ended up sparing the lives of 150 some odd people who are bystanders.



It would seem that Trump has read Macbeth  

"This life, which had been the tomb of his virtue and of his honour, is but a walking shadow; a poor player, that struts and frets his hour upon the stage, and then is heard no more: it is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."


----------



## QV (21 Jun 2019)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Me too. I'm really surprised. As I said the US only responds one way and in shooting down a US drone Iran knew how the US would respond so one can only surmise its exactly what they wanted.
> The US didn't give them what they wanted and ended up sparing the lives of 150 some odd people who are bystanders.



He campaigned as an alternative to the usual, and is acting like it.  So far, I've been pretty pleased with Trump's handling of events in both Syria and now with Iran.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (21 Jun 2019)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Me too. I'm really surprised. As I said the US only responds one way and in shooting down a US drone Iran knew how the US would respond so one can only surmise its exactly what they wanted.
> The US didn't give them what they wanted and ended up sparing the lives of 150 some odd people who are bystanders.



i suspect the people would not be bystanders, but active duty members of the Iranian military or IRGC


----------



## Spencer100 (21 Jun 2019)

You forgot the night janitor.....everyone forgets the night janitor. 

I bet he's happy Trump called it off


----------



## tomahawk6 (21 Jun 2019)

Maybe Trump listened to Trudeau's advice ?


----------



## Jarnhamar (21 Jun 2019)

Colin P said:
			
		

> i suspect the people would not be bystanders, but active duty members of the Iranian military or IRGC



Sorry you're absolutely right. When I say bystanders I mean the people who would likely be killed in these strikes likely wouldn't be the ones making the decision to shoot down a $220 million American aircraft.


----------



## daftandbarmy (21 Jun 2019)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Maybe Trump listened to Trudeau's advice ?



... about sock fashions?


----------



## Fishbone Jones (21 Jun 2019)

There's a good possibility that a strike or strikes can still happen for whatever reason.

However, I think it's just prudent at this point, to wait until they have an iron clad incident where Iran has no wiggle room to deny it. From my understanding, Iran says it was over their territory the US claims it wasn't. Too much he said, she said. Trump knows the trouble that can happen when your intelligence people want to go to war (WMD in Iraq).

I'm pretty sure Iran will provide whatever excuse is required to get their asses kicked, sooner or later.

In the meantime, being POTUS means you can change your mind and tell people no. If it saves lives, even the enemies, it was a good decision.

Only people that want to drop bombs indiscriminately should be upset. Everyone else should be pleased it didn't happen.

Just my  :2c:


----------



## The Bread Guy (22 Jun 2019)

Meanwhile, in other realms/battlespaces ...


> On Thursday evening, U.S. Cyber Command launched a retaliatory digital strike against an Iranian spy group that supported last week’s limpet mine attacks on commercial ships, according to two former intelligence officials.
> 
> The group, which has ties to the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, has over the past several years digitally tracked and targeted military and civilian ships passing through the economically important Strait of Hormuz, through which pass 17.4 million barrels of oil per day. Those capabilities, which have advanced over time, enabled attacks on vessels in the region for several years.
> 
> Though sources declined to provide any further details of the retaliatory cyber operation, the response highlights how the Persian Gulf has become a staging ground for escalating digital — as well as conventional — conflict, with both the United States and Iran trying to get the upper hand with cyber capabilities ...


More @ link


----------



## tomahawk6 (22 Jun 2019)

Leaks abound where none should exist. 

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/trump-approved-cyber-strikes-against-irans-missile-systems/ar-AADh6gv?ocid=spartanntp


----------



## The Bread Guy (23 Jun 2019)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Leaks abound where none should exist.
> 
> https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/trump-approved-cyber-strikes-against-irans-missile-systems/ar-AADh6gv?ocid=spartanntp


In politics, though, no matter what team jersey the winners wear, there's _"WTF?!?!?!?!?!?!? I want that person in jail fed bread & water!  I want their @#$%^&'ing head!"_ leaks, and there's _"oh ... my ... shaaaaaaaaame that got out there ..."_ leaks.  As of this post, all POTUS 45's complained about via his Twitter feed is how the strike turnaound/cancellation is being portrayed - and we _know_ he's not shy about complaining via those means  ;D


----------



## Retired AF Guy (23 Jun 2019)

Fishbone Jones said:
			
		

> Trump knows the trouble that can happen when your intelligence people want to go to war (WMD in Iraq).



Not sure if it was the intelligence people who wanted war versus politicians who cherry picked intelligence to suit there agendas, one of whom I believe was John Bolton.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (23 Jun 2019)

Iranian wet dreams

https://www.facebook.com/Military9Army/videos/715010422262732/


----------



## GR66 (23 Jun 2019)

Colin P said:
			
		

> Iranian wet dreams
> 
> https://www.facebook.com/Military9Army/videos/715010422262732/



Looks legit   :rofl:


----------



## Cloud Cover (24 Jun 2019)

I like the part where the TV channel helicopter fires a missile.  Embedded" journalism 2.0


----------



## Spencer100 (25 Jun 2019)

In what world would they get close enough to a US carrier to board it?  Plus there are 2000 sailor on board.


----------



## Spencer100 (25 Jun 2019)

I guess they built a mock up and attacked it in 2015 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p05bgtkxQis&feature=youtu.be&fbclid=IwAR1uHuFrS-_Y3LNJEtImAk0UunL1u9yN6f10dzskV28SJaxLlG2XQeUGSy0

Looks like an expensive drill....


----------



## dimsum (25 Jun 2019)

Spencer100 said:
			
		

> In what world would they get close enough to a US carrier to board it?  Plus there are 2000 sailor on board.



2000?  More like 6000 on a Nimitz-class including air wing.


----------



## tomahawk6 (25 Jun 2019)

Plus Marines. Not to mention the carriers escorts. Any attempt at taking a US warship would be an act of war.


----------



## Spencer100 (10 Jul 2019)

Britannia rules the waves  

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/9482610/iran-standoff-royal-navy-oil-tanker/


----------



## Cloud Cover (10 Jul 2019)

I like the part about “... HMS Montrose ... aimed its fierce weapons...”


----------



## tomahawk6 (11 Jul 2019)

Someone guessed right that the Iranians would try for a British tanker and had a warship close by. Kudos to the Royal Navy.

HMS Montrose


----------



## Lumber (11 Jul 2019)

In my mind I picture this perfect situation where the Montrose was on the disengaged side of the tanker and the Iranian gun boats didn't see her until she came around to defend the tanker, in which case the Iranian would have gone from feeling all confident and superior to "OH SHIT!".


----------



## Spencer100 (16 Jul 2019)

Missing tanker  

https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/world/uae-oil-tanker-disappears-in-iranian-waters-in-the-strait-of-hormuz/ar-AAEpAAQ?ocid=spartanntp


----------



## tomahawk6 (16 Jul 2019)

If the IRG took it then it will show up on satellite. I could see them grabbing it to exchange.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (17 Jul 2019)

Iran reports that it broke down and has been towed into their waters for repairs.


----------



## Loachman (17 Jul 2019)

And the crew have been enjoying the hospitality of their rescuers so much that they completely forgot to phone home and let everybody know that everything was just fine...?


----------



## Brad Sallows (17 Jul 2019)

The fleshpots of the Iranian coast are well-known as being nigh impossible to tear oneself away from.


----------



## tomahawk6 (18 Jul 2019)

Can you say convoy ?


----------



## SeaKingTacco (18 Jul 2019)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Can you say convoy ?



10-4, Rubberducky?


----------



## Colin Parkinson (18 Jul 2019)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Can you say convoy ?



Good luck getting them to wait to form a convoy, convoys are an efficient way to protect the movement of goods, but not an efficient way to move them. There is only so much terminal space to fill up tankers, so the first tanker may have to wait 3-5 days before the rest are filled. Empties would be easier, but you still wait till they get X number of ships and for naval vessels you need a at least 1 guard ship at the outer end of the system to protect ships waiting. Likely 2-3 per convoy and you likely have an outbound and inbound, so there is at least 6. You need to protect the ships at the terminal, so that is a number of smaller patrol craft with 1-2 bigger units patrolling for subs. Then you need roving patrols and mine hunters, who will also need protection. Double those numbers to provide any longterm coverage.


----------



## Spencer100 (18 Jul 2019)

Iran says they have the tanker.

https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/world/iran-state-tv-iranian-forces-seize-foreign-oil-tanker-crew/ar-AAEvJ1O?ocid=spartanntp


----------



## Colin Parkinson (18 Jul 2019)

48 km wide there, sound like the ship was in Iranian waters picking up oil and perhaps avoiding paying off the right people. Anyone with a paid AIS account may be able to go and look at their historical AIS data.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (18 Jul 2019)

IRGC release footage of seized tanker https://mobile.almasdarnews.com/article/iran-releases-footage-of-seized-oil-tanker-in-persian-gulf/


----------



## Colin Parkinson (19 Jul 2019)

Possible that a UK flagged tanker has been seized. https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/british-flagged-tanker-appears-to-have-been-seized-by-iran/?fbclid=IwAR07njlStDsEpG4ohp8rvQWOS4xTv3NjFbatWrfwY61V8t01ww9fkXoB1TQ


----------



## tomahawk6 (19 Jul 2019)

Iran took a UK tanker today. The time to talk has passed now its time for payback. 

https://www.foxnews.com/world/uk-flagged-tanker-seized-by-irans-revolutionary-guard-in-strait-of-hormuz


----------



## Jarnhamar (19 Jul 2019)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Iran took a UK tanker today. The time to talk has passed now its time for payback.
> 
> https://www.foxnews.com/world/uk-flagged-tanker-seized-by-irans-revolutionary-guard-in-strait-of-hormuz



Start sinking Iranian water craft.


----------



## tomahawk6 (19 Jul 2019)

A second Uk operated tanker has been seized. Both vessels are now in Iranian waters. Looks like the SBS or SEALs has their work cut out for them. I think the administration is trying to get European nations that rely on the Gulf to start protecting their tankers.

https://www.foxnews.com


----------



## Retired AF Guy (19 Jul 2019)

Latest from Haaretz website in Israel:



> U.K. Says Iran Seized Two of Its Tankers in Strait of Hormuz; Tehran Denies Capturing Second Vessel
> 
> Revolutionary Guards said first vessel overtaken for 'violating international waters' ■ Iranian media reports second boat was not captured but only warned ■ Trump to talk to U.K.
> Reuters
> ...



Link


----------



## Retired AF Guy (19 Jul 2019)

From the Marine Traffic website showing the track for the Steno Impero. Last hit was six hours and thirty minutes ago and you can see its heading directly for Iran.


----------



## NavyShooter (19 Jul 2019)

I believe this is under the columns of 'un-good' and 'higher gas prices coming soon'...


----------



## Brad Sallows (19 Jul 2019)

>higher gas prices coming soon

I wish.  A prolonged period of very high gas prices would be a useful piece of information to add to the usual debates about resource extraction and pollution mitigation.


----------



## tomahawk6 (19 Jul 2019)

Both the US and Canada are exporters so higher prices would be good. but not good for Japan and Europe.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (20 Jul 2019)

Meanwhile IRGC  release "drone" footage (with what looks to be a Huey 500 skid in it)  https://www.almasdarnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/t_video5877479203443574499.mp4?_=1


----------



## Retired AF Guy (20 Jul 2019)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Both the US and Canada are exporters so higher prices would be good. but not good for Japan and Europe.



Actually, after the US, Saudi Arabia is the second largest exporter of oil to Canada. 



> Last year [2018], Canadian companies spent $3.54 billion importing 6.4 million cubic metres of Saudi oil, up from 5.9 million cubic metres worth $2.5 billion in 2017, before the dispute started in August 2018.
> 
> In January 2019, for example, oil imports from the kingdom were 606,000 cubic metres, up from 559,000 cubic metres a year earlier. And although monthly imports gyrate significantly — a normal trend in the oil business, according to analysts — the long-term trend is unmistakable.
> 
> "Over five years, imports from Saudi have increased," said David Hughes, a former research manager with the Geological Survey of Canada and president of Global Sustainability Research, a consultancy in Calgary. In January 2019, Saudi oil accounted for roughly 10 per cent of Canadian consumption, up from about eight per cent in 2017, he said.



Source:  Canada's oil imports from Saudi Arabia on the rise since 2014, trade figures show. 28 April 2019


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (20 Jul 2019)

Quite correct RAFG, as this table from the GoC shows:

https://www.neb-one.gc.ca/nrg/ntgrtd/mrkt/snpsht/2019/03-03mprtscrdl-eng.html

However, Canada is still, overall, a net exporter of oil, and about 75% of our actual consumption is locally sourced. So, making the loss of 18% of the last 25% of consumption (i.e. about 4.5% ) would not be a big deal, especially since we produce more than we consume to start with.

For instance, if you look at Quebec in the table I refer to, you can see that, eventhough overall consumption in Quebec rose a bit in the last few years, the oil imports have gone down in real terms, as has the percentage from the Kingdom. That's because the refineries here have greatly increased their consumption of Alberta and Newfoundland oil - but mostly Alberta's since it's the cheapest around.

Yet another way Quebec is sticking it's tongue out at Alberta, I guess.  ;D


----------



## tomahawk6 (20 Jul 2019)

Video of Iranian commando's taking UK tanker. 

https://www.foxnews.com/world/iran-uk-tanker-video-commando-rappelling


----------



## CBH99 (20 Jul 2019)

Those were some serious environmental concerns they had... 🙄


----------



## Good2Golf (20 Jul 2019)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Video of Iranian commando's taking UK tanker.
> 
> https://www.foxnews.com/world/iran-uk-tanker-video-commando-rappelling



That 120’ fast rope would lead to some pretty hot hands by the time they reach the deck. Not sure why the IRG Mi-17 pilots were so high.  Good thing nobody lost their grip on the fast rope...they’d be a deck-pizza in a hurry.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (21 Jul 2019)

The RN tried to warn off the Iranians, but where 60 minutes away https://www.citynews1130.com/2019/07/21/uk-navy-heard-in-audio-trying-to-thwart-iran-ship-seizure/


----------



## Colin Parkinson (23 Jul 2019)

https://www.marinelink.com/news/strait-hormuz-ships-urged-alert-navies-468688?utm_source=MR-ENews-Weekdays-2019-07-23&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=MR-ENews

Shipping associations have called on ship owners to inform Britain's navy of their movements before sailing into the Middle East Gulf and Strait of Hormuz because of the escalating international crisis in the region.

About a fifth of the world's oil passes through the Strait of Hormuz and shipping companies are already deploying more unarmed security guards as an extra safeguard.

However, in a joint note issued by the leading trade associations on Monday, ship captains were requested to register with the Royal Navy's liaison body, the United Kingdom Marine Trade Operations, and to provide their transit plans 24 to 48 hours before entering the region.

Details requested included the nationalities of crew members and any ship speed constraints.

The information provided would be passed onto the U.S. Navy and other naval forces involved in efforts to create a United States-led multinational security initiative known as Operation Sentinel. Washington says the plan is to increase surveillance of and security in key waterways in the Middle East.

"While the United States has committed to supporting this initiative, contributions and leadership from regional and international partners will be required," shipping association BIMCO said in a note accompanying the advisory.

UK Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt told parliament on Monday that Britain will seek to put together a European-led maritime protection mission to ensure safe shipping through the Strait of Hormuz after Iran seized a British-flagged vessel in what London said was an act of "state piracy".

One tanker owner said: "We will time transits for daylight hours and proceed at maximum speed."

(Reporting by Jonathan Saul and Julia Payne Editing by David Goodman)


----------



## FJAG (23 Jul 2019)

I briefly said to myself that this situation calls for a larger fleet of small fast patrol boats that would be able to provide better coverage as ship escorts. 

Then I asked myself; maybe there's a role here for some of our MCDVs here? 

Then I took a look at the MCDVs speed and armaments and said to myself; Why the hell didn't we build cheaper, smaller, faster, more capable training/operations vessels in the first place (like the Iranians did)?

I guess in the long run it doesn't matter. We're screwed either way. Militarily the Iranians have the upper hand in this both tactically and strategically.

 :brickwall:


----------



## Colin Parkinson (23 Jul 2019)

Your looking more to something like this operating from friendly bases along the route https://products.damen.com/en/ranges/sigma-fast-attack


----------



## tomahawk6 (23 Jul 2019)

Or like the USN's Cyclone class at 178 ft, 35knots,2 25mm guns and a mix of 7.62mm and MK19's and stinger SAM's. 

https://www.wearethemighty.com/smallest-navy-ship-cyclone-class


----------



## FJAG (23 Jul 2019)

Colin P said:
			
		

> Your looking more to something like this operating from friendly bases along the route https://products.damen.com/en/ranges/sigma-fast-attack



More  a mix with one or more of something with these capabilities:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flyvefisken-class_patrol_vessel

or these:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamina-class_missile_boat

Supplemented by a half dozen or more with something like these:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shaldag-class_patrol_boat

The issue here is small (300-400 tonnes for the larger, 100 tonnes for the smaller), fast (30 knts min) with small crews (15-40) and advanced weapon systems that would be a deterrent to someone who wants to mix with them or will eat their lunch if they do.

I'm also mindful of the narrowness of this channel and the vulnerability to shore based anti-ship missiles which requires an overarching joint force with close in air and missile support which could strike back against any active shore-based instillation.

As I said above. Currently the tactical and strategic advantage belongs to Iran. If they are going to start acting out in the face of current deterrent forces then there may be a need to step up the game or be prepared to abandon the strait as a shipping route.

 :cheers:


----------



## NavyShooter (23 Jul 2019)

The US can re-activate the Pegasus class, and we'll re-develop our Bras d'Or class, with a 25mm on the foc'sle...good to go?


----------



## Underway (23 Jul 2019)

FJAG said:
			
		

> I briefly said to myself that this situation calls for a larger fleet of small fast patrol boats that would be able to provide better coverage as ship escorts.
> 
> Then I asked myself; maybe there's a role here for some of our MCDVs here?
> 
> ...



The role near Iran is for frigates at a minimum.  Proper survivability, seakeeping, endurance etc...  Questions that need to be answered before you build/send in smaller littoral combat ship types.

Do we have bases to operate from near Iran?  Do we have a strategic imperative (aside from alliance virtue signaling) to be anywhere near Iran?  Should we pay for bases near Iran, or even work with allies(?) like Saudi Arabia?  Would smaller ships even be remotely survivable against Iran (ie: would Cdn public be willing to risk sailors/ships in smaller less survivable craft)?

Answer to all these questions is a resounding no.  In fact I would argue that it's in our best strategic interest to have friction in the middle east.  Keeps any one power from getting a toehold, keeps oil prices high, causes Europe to look for other oil sources.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (23 Jul 2019)

I have to disagree, Frigates are almost Capital ships for most navies now and your putting them into tight confines often within range of Anti-ship missiles. The main  area of coverage is roughly 46,000 square KM. Sounds big but most of it has a likely friendly port to operate from and anywhere from 50-150 km wide. This is a place for Corvettes and patrol boats, with smaller subs. The Frigates can operate on the approaches and Western half. But the Straits of Hormuz are the realm of smaller craft.

Now I wonder if the US will "Lend-Lease" the LCS to the RN?


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (23 Jul 2019)

LCS are frigate size vessels.

You want both speed, stealth and survivability in that environment? Here's the top dog, IMHO.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e0/Hamina-luokka_Hanko.JPG


----------



## MilEME09 (23 Jul 2019)

Underway said:
			
		

> Do we have bases to operate from near Iran? à



I would only assume we would use the home ports of the US Fifth or Sixth fleets to operate near Iran as they are in Bahrain and Italy respectively.


----------



## FJAG (23 Jul 2019)

I have to admit that I'm not a sailor nor have studied naval warfare to any degree (I'm somewhat Army-centric). 

But.

If your enemy is seizing or sabotaging civilian ships that you need to protect and if we have only a few capital ships in the area that can't cover everything, then logic demands that they be augmented by lighter, faster patrol vessels that have a fighting capability and have smaller crews. 

A Canadian Frigate right now has a complement of 225 and a speed of 30 knots. For that many personnel you could man 15 Shaldag-class patrol boats capable of 50 knot bursts.

It's simple math to up your presence for deterrence and intercept capability. For the heavy lifting there is still a US carrier group and the rest of the Combined Maritime Forces.

That said, the original question in my mind arising out of all this was, what use are the MCDVs to us these days anyway? It's a thousand tonne boat with a speed of 15 knots and no weapons to speak of. 

Oh, well. Back to being cynical about the shortcomings of the Army.

 :cheers:


----------



## Cloud Cover (23 Jul 2019)

Lots of oil in Alberta. Just sayin'...


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (23 Jul 2019)

As usual, FJAG, in the Navy it's always about the mission you are there to fulfill.

MCDV are primarily underwater warfare vessels, and mine warfare vessels more specifically. Their equipment and armement are optimized for mapping of bottom of ocean objects, and then analyzing, classifying and destroying them. As a secondary role, they are capble of support to other governement department for constabulary duties (fisheries, drug interdiction, security boardings of merchant vessels), something for which their speed and armement is appropriate.

P.S.: The MCDV's are ships - S-H-I-P-S - not "boats".


----------



## FJAG (23 Jul 2019)

That's what I always thought but if Wikipedia can be believed (and why shouldn't it, it's written by guys living in their mom's basement) we have only a very few mine hunting packages available for the fleet and there seems to be no under surface weapon systems (I presume they would need to work in conjunction with Frigates or other air resources to do that.)

Since we don't have the manpower to properly man the frigates, I presume the MCDVs are very far down the priority list for manning and missions (even for the reserves that were supposed to crew them)

 :cheers:


----------



## Colin Parkinson (23 Jul 2019)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> LCS are frigate size vessels.
> 
> You want both speed, stealth and survivability in that environment? Here's the top dog, IMHO.
> 
> https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e0/Hamina-luokka_Hanko.JPG



Yes the Swedish stuff is designed with knife fighting in confined waterways in mind. although you might need A/C for the Gulf


----------



## GR66 (23 Jul 2019)

A fast patrol boat might be the right platform for the Persian Gulf, but where does that kind of vessel fit into the RCN's overall needs?  Could it do enough other things for us to make it worthwhile?  

I'm all in favour of expanding the RCN, but would the money be better spent on something more versatile like a corvette with a helicopter landing pad?  Something that has better range for patrolling our coast, better sea keeping for operations in the North Atlantic, ASW capability, etc?  There are a number of examples with crews in the 60-80 range that might be options.

And personally, if it comes down to funding choices with our limited budget I'd rather put it into replacement subs if it's an either-or proposition.


----------



## daftandbarmy (24 Jul 2019)

Meanwhile, in the UK, more hand wringing over the Iranians handing the Royal Navy their 'cover' yet again:

"The Royal Navy is too small to counter the potential threat from Iran, the defence minister has admitted.

Tobias Ellwood told The Times: “The threats we’re facing are changing in front of us, the world is getting more complex. If we are wanting to continue to play this influential role on the international stage it will require further funding for our armed forces, not least the Royal Navy. Our Royal Navy is too small to manage our interests across the globe.”

https://www.theweek.co.uk/102362/is-the-royal-navy-too-small-to-deal-with-iranian-threat


----------



## Stoker (24 Jul 2019)

FJAG said:
			
		

> That's what I always thought but if Wikipedia can be believed (and why shouldn't it, it's written by guys living in their mom's basement) we have only a very few mine hunting packages available for the fleet and there seems to be no under surface weapon systems (I presume they would need to work in conjunction with Frigates or other air resources to do that.)
> 
> Since we don't have the manpower to properly man the frigates, I presume the MCDVs are very far down the priority list for manning and missions (even for the reserves that were supposed to crew them)
> 
> :cheers:



MCDVs manning is pretty stable these days at least on the East Coast. Reserves play a very small role in manning. We are currently operating four ships with two in their 60 monthly docking with extensive upgrades. We currently have one ship on OP Caribbe  doing anti drug patrols, another supporting FDU  in unexploded ordinance recovery in NL, one getting ready to deploy to the Arctic and another getting ready for exercise Cutlass fury. In the last year the ships have deployed to the Arctic, Carribean, Africa and Europe. This is the busiest MCDVs have ever been. 
Currently MCDVs can embark  multibeam echo sounder for hydrographic work which they have used extensively in the Arctic, several different route survey payloads, AUV mine warfare payloads. Recently the MCDVs have been trialing a ASW towed array payload (TRAPS) that can be fitted to detect submarines. 
Other capabilities being brought to the class is a UAV and IR capability.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (24 Jul 2019)

Without a doubt the MCDV have been money well spent, you sure the hell would not want to send them to the Gulf as they are almost unarmed and no match for any other vessel there.


----------



## Stoker (24 Jul 2019)

Colin P said:
			
		

> Without a doubt the MCDV have been money well spent, you sure the hell would not want to send them to the Gulf as they are almost unarmed and no match for any other vessel there.



Not sure they will ever be deployed in the Gulf however they have been the Mediterranean and Africa and done stellar work.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (24 Jul 2019)

Certainly not with their present armament, eventually Africa will get to hot as well.


----------



## Stoker (24 Jul 2019)

Colin P said:
			
		

> Certainly not with their present armament, eventually Africa will get to hot as well.



I would imagine to deploy to the Gulf would be appropriately armed, probably a 25mm. The risk in Africa is low and will continue to be low in the Gulf of Guinea where they operate. Each time they deploy a risk assessment is carried out. The ships also carry some tools to be more effective there.


----------



## tomahawk6 (24 Jul 2019)

Since the UK is short on naval assets why cant she call on Commonwealth nations to lend a hand ?


----------



## kratz (24 Jul 2019)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Since the UK is short on naval assets why cant she call on Commonwealth nations to lend a hand ?



Our illustrious supreme leader would automatically quote himself, "...because it's 2019".   /s


----------



## dimsum (24 Jul 2019)

Colin P said:
			
		

> Without a doubt the MCDV have been money well spent, you sure the hell would not want to send them to the Gulf as they are almost unarmed and no match for any other vessel there.



If there was ever a reason to get those things up-gunned (and put something on the old 40mm mount and maybe perhaps on the sweep deck), that would be it  :nod:


----------



## Halifax Tar (24 Jul 2019)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Since the UK is short on naval assets why cant she call on Commonwealth nations to lend a hand ?



We have an allegiance to the Queen, not the British Parliament is my understanding.


----------



## Edward Campbell (24 Jul 2019)

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> We have an allegiance to the Queen, not the British Parliament is my understanding.




Canada, amongst others, did provide considerable and much needed naval support to the UK in the Falklands War, primarily by picking up non-Falklands UK commitments. Some allies (including Canada? I cannot remember) provided the UK with munitions ~ air-to-air missiles, I recall, specifically. There were also other areas in which support was provided.

It can happen, quietly, if a foreign, friendly, allied government makes a formal request; it's not automatic.


----------



## Retired AF Guy (24 Jul 2019)

Colin P said:
			
		

> Yes the Swedish stuff is designed with knife fighting in confined waterways in mind. although you might need A/C for the Gulf



Actually, the Hamina-class missile boat is Finnish, not  Swedish and the only reason I know that is because I was going to post an article on the Hamina when I saw the older post by Oldgateboatdriver. 

But Oldgateboatdriver does have a point; not only do they have "speed, stealth and survivability" but once upgrades are completed they will have a 40mm Mk.4 cannon, 12.7mm RWS, the latest Torpedo (Torped 470) capability, Gabriel Mk.5 anti-ship missile, plus a upgraded Combat Management System, radars and fire control system and a new sonar. Plus, they will retain their eight Umkhonto SAMs in vertical launchers. 

I'm not a naval expert, but that sounds like a pretty big punch for a vessel that is only 167 ft in length.


----------



## Underway (25 Jul 2019)

Chief Engineer said:
			
		

> Currently MCDVs can embark  multibeam echo sounder for hydrographic work which they have used extensively in the Arctic, several different route survey payloads, AUV mine warfare payloads. Recently the MCDVs have been trialing a ASW towed array payload (TRAPS) that can be fitted to detect submarines.
> Other capabilities being brought to the class is a UAV and IR capability.



Funny how that all comes once the Reg F start sailing on those ships more regularly...


----------



## Stoker (25 Jul 2019)

Underway said:
			
		

> Funny how that all comes once the Reg F start sailing on those ships more regularly...



Yet the skill level overall aboard the Kingston Class is not the same when most of the crew were reserves.


----------



## Cloud Cover (25 Jul 2019)

Say again?


----------



## Stoker (25 Jul 2019)

Cloud Cover said:
			
		

> Say again?



Easy, when the reserves were in the ships they had people with years experience doing the job, sometimes decades. You can't buy that experience and ownership that brings. Currently crews comes in for relatively short periods of time, CO's and Coxn's are typically in for one year postings. It is not uncommon to have over 50% crew change outs from mission to mission, the skills and ownership are not the same. It will take time to build that kind of experience. Its not a criticism, its an observation.


----------



## CBH99 (25 Jul 2019)

You mentioned an ASW towed sonar payload...does that include the ability to engage submarines, or simply detect & transit their location?


----------



## Stoker (25 Jul 2019)

CBH99 said:
			
		

> You mentioned an ASW towed sonar payload...does that include the ability to engage submarines, or simply detect & transit their location?



Detect and transmit.


----------



## tomahawk6 (26 Jul 2019)

New government vows to escort tankers.  

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-49110331


----------



## FJAG (26 Jul 2019)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> New government vows to escort tankers.
> 
> https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-49110331



Time to reinstate the convoy system.

 :cheers:


----------



## Colin Parkinson (26 Jul 2019)

This is interesting

Covert Iranian cargo ship http://www.hisutton.com/Saviz.html

Covert US Cargo ship https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/20959/photo-of-shadowy-u-s-special-operations-ghost-mothership-appears-on-twitter


----------



## FJAG (26 Jul 2019)

Maybe we should re-introduce Q-ships.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q-ship

 :cheers:


----------



## brihard (26 Jul 2019)

Really we’re getting pretty into the weeds when we talk about repelling boardings... 

What’s Iran’s strategic objective with threatening tanker traffic? I’m not sure. If they’re attempting to demonstrate the credibility of their threats to tanker traffic, they already succeeded. They’ve holed a couple, and they’ve pirated a couple, releasing one at their leisure, and keeping custody of one belonging to one of modern history’s pre-eminent maritime powers.

Can we stop them seizing tankers? With enough resources, definitely. Can we deny Iran access to the waters? With more resources and adequate maritime surveillance, also yes. But now that’s playing hardball, and if we choose to do that, so can they. Hardball for them means putting a Silkworm into the side of a tanker. Can we run missile interdiction in protection of all tanker traffic? Not a chance.

Which gets us back to: what is their objective and how far will they go to achieve it? Can we deny their objective AND protect and preserve tanker traffic through the strait? That I don’t know. I do feel reasonably sure that no matter how much we escalate militarily, they will probably have the ability to hard-kill a tanker long past the point where that particular factor remains significant in our political and diplomatic calculus.

I don’t know where that leaves us. Killing Iranians =/= stopping Iran.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (26 Jul 2019)

or kill some Iranians, notably IRGC types and break some of their toys. Iran does not want full blown war, they want propaganda victories, take out some of their fast boats and helicopter and send a warning quietly through back channels that their naval base is next. Don't give them any warning about the initial response.


----------



## tomahawk6 (28 Jul 2019)

Duncan will help HMS Montrose escort tankers. Duncan is a type 45 air defense destroyer.

https://apnews.com/de45fa9d9d1148a0bb3d2c044289fcb4

https://thedefensepost.com/2019/07/12/uk-destroyer-hms-duncan-gulf


Mod's would you be so kind to put this in the Tanker War thread ? Thanks Damn senior moment.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (28 Jul 2019)

Britain begins escorting all U.K.-flagged vessels through the Strait of Hormuz

(I am assuming their insurance rates skyrocket if they don't comply)


----------



## tomahawk6 (28 Jul 2019)

The type 45 might deterr another boarding action by helo.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (1 Aug 2019)

https://gcaptain.com/tankers-perform-vanishing-act-in-hormuz-as-tensions-escalate/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Gcaptain+%28gCaptain.com%29&goal=0_f50174ef03-5b3e8dc405-139922301&mc_cid=5b3e8dc405&mc_eid=c9f44d7f09

By Brian Wingfield and Julian Lee (Bloomberg) –Oil tanker owners are finding a way to reduce the risks of navigating the Strait of Hormuz, the world’s most important — and lately most dangerous — energy chokepoint: vanish from global tracking systems.

Copying from Iran’s own playbook, at least 20 ships turned off their transponders while passing through the strait this month, tanker-tracking data compiled by Bloomberg show. Others appear to have slightly altered their routes once inside the Persian Gulf, sailing closer than usual to Saudi Arabia’s coast en route to ports in Kuwait or Iraq.

Before the latest increase in tensions with Iran, ships were more consistent about signaling their positions as they passed through a waterway that handles a third of seaborne petroleum. Once inside the Gulf, shipping routes took them fairly close to the Iranian coast, skirting the offshore South Pars/North gas field shared by Iran and Qatar. Most still do, but a growing number appear to be trying something new. (rest at link)


----------



## Spencer100 (2 Aug 2019)

USNI blog about RN, USN and Allies helping.

https://blog.usni.org/posts/2019/07/31/the-essential-requirement-for-maritime-sovereignty

Plus a bonus dig at Canada and The HMCS Uganda in WWII   :'(


----------



## Colin Parkinson (2 Aug 2019)

A good reminder that actions have consequences and shirking your commitments is remembered for a long time.


----------



## Spencer100 (15 Aug 2019)

Did Britain just blink?  Or just something else? 

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/us-iran-oil-tanker-gibraltar-released-gulf-latest-vessel-seized-a9061071.html


----------



## Colin Parkinson (15 Aug 2019)

The UK is in a tough spot, they don't want to appear to be weak, but from day 1 they said that if the cargo is not going to Syria, they would release it. So now Iran has given assurances it is not going there, so the legal reason for holding it is gone. The Iranians can claim they beat the UK up, but really the Brits would release it without the Iranians grabbing a tanker.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (18 Aug 2019)

Gibraltar has released the Tanker but it's waiting new crew and now renamed and flagged Iranian.

https://gcaptain.com/iran-tanker-shifts-position-but-still-at-anchor-off-gibraltar/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Gcaptain+%28gCaptain.com%29&goal=0_f50174ef03-224fe9df53-139922301&mc_cid=224fe9df53&mc_eid=c9f44d7f09


----------



## Spencer100 (21 Aug 2019)

Australia is joining.

https://foreignminister.gov.au/releases/Pages/2019/mp_mr_190821.aspx?w=E6pq%2FUhzOs%2BE7V9FFYi1xQ%3D%3D&fbclid=IwAR3JqhTVMwFKZSc8V-Rt7d76dbhPji5Ca0BMSAppkPJQNjdQ68fW21c1iQU


----------



## Colin Parkinson (21 Aug 2019)

Semi-related

https://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2019/08/analysis-houthi-naval-attacks-in-the-red-sea.php


----------



## tomahawk6 (21 Aug 2019)

The tanker wont leave Greece.


----------



## tomahawk6 (24 Aug 2019)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> The tanker wont leave Greece.



The tanker has diverted to Turkey.


----------



## tomahawk6 (24 Aug 2019)

HMS Duncan has been refueled at sea by the USNS Alan Shepard. 

https://seawaves.com/2019/08/23/hms-duncan-refueled-by-usns-alan-shepard/


----------



## Journeyman (25 Aug 2019)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> The tanker has diverted to Turkey.


So, what are the odds that the tanker trucks are already lining up to take the oil across the border to help Syria battle the Kurds?   :not-again:


----------



## Colin Parkinson (29 Aug 2019)

meanwhile https://www.marinelink.com/news/iran-qatar-shipping-route-operational-470072?utm_source=MR-ENews-Weekdays-2019-08-29&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=MR-ENews


----------



## Colin Parkinson (31 Aug 2019)

ADRIAN DARYA at her current course and speed can be at the terminal in Baniyas Syria in 12 hours, her end destination keeps changing, not unusual for commodity ships to have their cargo sold several times in a voyage, but with this ship.....

Update steaming at 7.4kts on a course of 112degrees, puts her into Syrian waters in 4.5 hrs, there is no Turkish port in the direction she is currently travelling.

Hmm the Iranian vessel is slowing and turned to 140 degrees, steaming North is the Maersk Magellan, a Turkish flagged tanker, either the Iranian ship is hoping to wander into Syrian waters or do a ship to ship transfer? they meet in 2-3hrs so we will see.


  https://www.vesselfinder.com/?imo=9116412


----------



## Retired AF Guy (2 Sep 2019)

The latest tracking info (see attachment one) from the Marine Traffic website shows the ADRIAN DARYA north of Cyprus then backtracking before heading towards Lebanon. However, latest info (today - Attachment 2) shows her turning to port and heading towards Syria. 

*Imagery from Marine Traffic.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (2 Sep 2019)

5 hrs see can be in Syrian waters, 52nm SE of Banayis


----------



## Retired AF Guy (2 Sep 2019)

Colin P said:
			
		

> 5 hrs see can be in Syrian waters, 52nm SE of Banayis



Latest update was almost nine hours ago. Possible they turned off AIS tracking data and may already in a Syrian port.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (3 Sep 2019)

Yes she has likely started discharging, since they had problems with the mooring points, discharging might take longer than hoped and they might be able to get satellite evidence of it. At least now the Europeans know what is the worth of the Iranian promise. That ship will be sold immediately after and name changed numerous times.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (14 Oct 2019)

Picture of damage to Iranian ship. Interesting it looks like the plate sheared along a seam/weld on one side, possibly buckled in on the other. https://gcaptain.com/targeted-iranian-tanker-plugged-as-it-heads-for-gulf-iran-says/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Gcaptain+%28gCaptain.com%29&goal=0_f50174ef03-179188ae47-139922301&mc_cid=179188ae47&mc_eid=c9f44d7f09


----------

