Author Topic: Tanker War 2.0  (Read 13483 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline tomahawk6

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 109,385
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,784
Re: Tanker War 2.0
« Reply #150 on: July 24, 2019, 16:56:45 »
Since the UK is short on naval assets why cant she call on Commonwealth nations to lend a hand ?

Offline kratz

    Summer is here...and more rain.

  • Float, Move, Fight
  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 264,218
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,334
Re: Tanker War 2.0
« Reply #151 on: July 24, 2019, 17:12:42 »
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
Quote from: Pipe *General Call*
"Tanning Stations on the flight deck"


Remember, this site is unofficial and privately owned. The site benefits from the presence of current members willing to answer questions.

Offline Dimsum

    West coast best coast.

  • Mentor
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 181,080
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 5,318
  • I get paid to travel. I just don't pick where.
Re: Tanker War 2.0
« Reply #152 on: July 24, 2019, 17:16:22 »
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:
Philip II of Macedon to Spartans (346 BC):  "You are advised to submit without further delay, for if I bring my army into your land, I will destroy your farms, slay your people, and raze your city."

Reply:  "If."

Offline Halifax Tar

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 48,043
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,916
  • Ready Aye Ready
Re: Tanker War 2.0
« Reply #153 on: July 24, 2019, 18:38:17 »
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.
Lead me, follow me or get the hell out of my way

Online E.R. Campbell

  • Retired, years ago
  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Myth
  • *
  • 486,970
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 18,390
Re: Tanker War 2.0
« Reply #154 on: July 24, 2019, 19:40:14 »
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.
It is ill that men should kill one another in seditions, tumults and wars; but it is worse to bring nations to such misery, weakness and baseness
as to have neither strength nor courage to contend for anything; to have nothing left worth defending and to give the name of peace to desolation.
Algernon Sidney in Discourses Concerning Government, (1698)
----------
Like what you see/read here on Army.ca?  Subscribe, and help keep it "on the air!"

Offline Retired AF Guy

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 48,975
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,708
Re: Tanker War 2.0
« Reply #155 on: July 24, 2019, 19:41:43 »
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.
"Leave one wolf alive, and the sheep are never safe."

Arya Stark

Offline Underway

  • Donor
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • 21,255
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 934
Re: Tanker War 2.0
« Reply #156 on: July 25, 2019, 15:53:31 »
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...

Offline Chief Engineer

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 742,452
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,035
Re: Tanker War 2.0
« Reply #157 on: July 25, 2019, 18:15:30 »
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.
+300
"When your draught exceeds your depth, you are most assuredly aground"

All opinions stated are not official policy of the CF and of a private individual

كافر

Offline Cloud Cover

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 39,505
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 4,118
Re: Tanker War 2.0
« Reply #158 on: July 25, 2019, 18:21:29 »
Say again?
Living the lean life

Offline Chief Engineer

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 742,452
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,035
Re: Tanker War 2.0
« Reply #159 on: July 25, 2019, 18:35:23 »
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.
"When your draught exceeds your depth, you are most assuredly aground"

All opinions stated are not official policy of the CF and of a private individual

كافر

Offline CBH99

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 27,075
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 809
Re: Tanker War 2.0
« Reply #160 on: July 25, 2019, 19:52:25 »
You mentioned an ASW towed sonar payload...does that include the ability to engage submarines, or simply detect & transit their location?
Fortune Favours the Bold...and the Smart.

Wouldn't it be nice to have some Boondock Saints kicking around?

Offline Chief Engineer

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 742,452
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,035
Re: Tanker War 2.0
« Reply #161 on: July 25, 2019, 19:55:12 »
You mentioned an ASW towed sonar payload...does that include the ability to engage submarines, or simply detect & transit their location?

Detect and transmit.
"When your draught exceeds your depth, you are most assuredly aground"

All opinions stated are not official policy of the CF and of a private individual

كافر

Offline tomahawk6

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 109,385
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,784
Re: Tanker War 2.0
« Reply #162 on: July 25, 2019, 23:14:25 »
New government vows to escort tankers. 

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

Offline FJAG

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 198,170
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,353
  • Ex Gladio Justicia
    • Google Sites Wolf Riedel
Re: Tanker War 2.0
« Reply #163 on: July 25, 2019, 23:41:50 »
New government vows to escort tankers. 

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

Time to reinstate the convoy system.

 :cheers:
Illegitimi non carborundum
Semper debeatis percutis ictu primo
Access my "Allies" and "Mark Winters, CID" book series at:
https://sites.google.com/view/wolfriedel
Facebook at https://www.facebook.com/WolfRiedelAuthor/

Offline Colin P

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 143,680
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,560
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: Tanker War 2.0
« Reply #164 on: July 26, 2019, 15:45:20 »

Offline FJAG

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 198,170
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,353
  • Ex Gladio Justicia
    • Google Sites Wolf Riedel
Re: Tanker War 2.0
« Reply #165 on: July 26, 2019, 16:51:03 »
Maybe we should re-introduce Q-ships.

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

 :cheers:
Illegitimi non carborundum
Semper debeatis percutis ictu primo
Access my "Allies" and "Mark Winters, CID" book series at:
https://sites.google.com/view/wolfriedel
Facebook at https://www.facebook.com/WolfRiedelAuthor/

Offline Brihard

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 225,470
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 4,647
  • Non-Electric Pop-Up Target
Re: Tanker War 2.0
« Reply #166 on: July 26, 2019, 17:21:05 »
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.

Pacificsm is doctrine fostered by a delusional minority and by the media, which holds forth the proposition it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.

Offline Colin P

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 143,680
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,560
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: Tanker War 2.0
« Reply #167 on: July 26, 2019, 18:41:49 »
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.

Offline tomahawk6

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 109,385
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,784
Re: Tanker War 2.0
« Reply #168 on: July 28, 2019, 11:17:48 »
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.  :D

« Last Edit: July 28, 2019, 11:25:49 by tomahawk6 »

Offline Colin P

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 143,680
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,560
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: Tanker War 2.0
« Reply #169 on: July 28, 2019, 13:21:48 »
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)


Offline tomahawk6

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 109,385
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,784
Re: Tanker War 2.0
« Reply #170 on: July 28, 2019, 14:27:33 »
The type 45 might deterr another boarding action by helo.

Offline Colin P

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 143,680
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,560
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: Tanker War 2.0
« Reply #171 on: August 01, 2019, 12:02:09 »
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)

Offline Spencer100

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 11,595
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 430
Re: Tanker War 2.0
« Reply #172 on: August 02, 2019, 15:01:34 »
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   :'(

Offline Colin P

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 143,680
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,560
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: Tanker War 2.0
« Reply #173 on: August 02, 2019, 17:03:56 »
A good reminder that actions have consequences and shirking your commitments is remembered for a long time.

Offline Spencer100

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 11,595
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 430
Re: Tanker War 2.0
« Reply #174 on: August 15, 2019, 21:34:49 »