Korea Sanctions Blockade
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Thread Starter
Korea Sanctions Blockade
Torygraph articles. The subject seems strangely absent from the Times and grauniad....
Britain's obligation to blockade North Korea
I forecast a certain individual will jump in here to comment pretty sharpish....
"....Since Labour came to power in 1997, the Navy has lost a third of its ships. We should be able to rustle up a couple of frigates or destroyers, a submarine, even an aircraft carrier. But as the Sea Harrier was withdrawn from service earlier this year, and its replacement does not arrive until 2013, those ships will be defenceless against missile fire. Unless our fleet shelters under the protection of the French or the Americans, its air defences are pitiful; were the Falklands crisis to recur today, our task force would be sunk before ever sighting Port Stanley.......
Crisis heightens as China attacks use of warships to intercept cargo vessels
Navy taskforce will be forced to rely on France and America
The Age: Australian Govt mulls N Korea blockade involvement
So, any one reckon Tony will be sending the fleet to join the US, Australians, Japanese etc in the blockade?
Britain's obligation to blockade North Korea
I forecast a certain individual will jump in here to comment pretty sharpish....
"....Since Labour came to power in 1997, the Navy has lost a third of its ships. We should be able to rustle up a couple of frigates or destroyers, a submarine, even an aircraft carrier. But as the Sea Harrier was withdrawn from service earlier this year, and its replacement does not arrive until 2013, those ships will be defenceless against missile fire. Unless our fleet shelters under the protection of the French or the Americans, its air defences are pitiful; were the Falklands crisis to recur today, our task force would be sunk before ever sighting Port Stanley.......
Crisis heightens as China attacks use of warships to intercept cargo vessels
Navy taskforce will be forced to rely on France and America
The Age: Australian Govt mulls N Korea blockade involvement
So, any one reckon Tony will be sending the fleet to join the US, Australians, Japanese etc in the blockade?
No doubt there's a team investigating the seaworthiness of HMS Victory?
Surely even that turd Bliar wouldn't commit forces which lacked any credible air defence?
Yes he would....
Surely even that turd Bliar wouldn't commit forces which lacked any credible air defence?
Yes he would....
Join Date: May 2006
Location: 2 m South of Radstock VRP
Posts: 2,042
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Over recent months, I've read Mb upon Mb of Ppruner text decrying the money "wasted" on Cold War inspired weapons and platforms. Some well timed Oriental sabre rattling suddenly concentrates our minds on how big and scary the World is. Immediately, AA and ASW capability emerges as a required asset.
If we are serious about containing N Korea's offensive nuclear capability to within her own national boundaries, it will require a credible Naval presence and airborne maritime reconnaissance. Needless to say the Americans and the Japanese are virtually on station and equipped for the task. The French aren't on station but could, if so inclined, make a contribution. The RN, on the other hand, has been starved of resources to sustain the Army in its various current roles. Similar is probably true of the Nimrod force. We would be hard pressed to field a credible DD/FF contribution, with or without SSN support. Theoretically, the CVSs and OCEAN could make a useful contribution, so long as they stay outside a hostile air environment. They would tie up ASW assets that could be used for dedicated patrol and contraband guard, though. Similarly, the T42 have a capability that may be absorbed in providing a precautionary AA screen. Even though the N Korean Navy is principally a coastal defence force, they have sufficient SSKs to make their presence felt. At this stage, of course, we don't know what indirect threat there will be from China. How apt to say that we live in interesting times.
Let's hope that the 1st Sea Lord is as frank and honest as the CGS has proved to be.
If we are serious about containing N Korea's offensive nuclear capability to within her own national boundaries, it will require a credible Naval presence and airborne maritime reconnaissance. Needless to say the Americans and the Japanese are virtually on station and equipped for the task. The French aren't on station but could, if so inclined, make a contribution. The RN, on the other hand, has been starved of resources to sustain the Army in its various current roles. Similar is probably true of the Nimrod force. We would be hard pressed to field a credible DD/FF contribution, with or without SSN support. Theoretically, the CVSs and OCEAN could make a useful contribution, so long as they stay outside a hostile air environment. They would tie up ASW assets that could be used for dedicated patrol and contraband guard, though. Similarly, the T42 have a capability that may be absorbed in providing a precautionary AA screen. Even though the N Korean Navy is principally a coastal defence force, they have sufficient SSKs to make their presence felt. At this stage, of course, we don't know what indirect threat there will be from China. How apt to say that we live in interesting times.
Let's hope that the 1st Sea Lord is as frank and honest as the CGS has proved to be.
Last edited by GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU; 16th Oct 2006 at 10:31. Reason: Finger trouble.
"Theoretically, the CVSs and OCEAN could make a useful contribution, so long as they stay outside a hostile air environment. They would tie up ASW assets that could be used for dedicated patrol and contraband guard, though."
Or we could use the CVS as they were originally deisgned - to provide ASW screening for US CVBG. They might be particularly interested in this given that they've just about got shot of the S3 Viking and would struggle to put an ASW screen up currently. A ship capable of operating up to 12 dippers might be quite useful, particularly in shallow waters......P3 / Merlin hunter-killer combo anyone?
Shame it'll quash the fondly held notions of some in town that there are no nasty people out there who operate submarines. Might even remind folk of the original justification for MRA4.....shame we haven't got any yet...
Or we could use the CVS as they were originally deisgned - to provide ASW screening for US CVBG. They might be particularly interested in this given that they've just about got shot of the S3 Viking and would struggle to put an ASW screen up currently. A ship capable of operating up to 12 dippers might be quite useful, particularly in shallow waters......P3 / Merlin hunter-killer combo anyone?
Shame it'll quash the fondly held notions of some in town that there are no nasty people out there who operate submarines. Might even remind folk of the original justification for MRA4.....shame we haven't got any yet...
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Thread Starter
Canada seems in the same boat, so to speak.... MacKay: Canada will help halt Kim But ability to enforce sanctions against North Korea questioned.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Lowlevel UK
Posts: 316
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Come on Beags, they wouldn't send VICTORY because shipwrights now-a-days don't work on wood and the torado worm is rife in those waters. However, the RN does need heavy metal so there is always HMS Warrior, especially as she is 'sort of' afloat in Pompey.
Anyway, only history gets to re-define 'credible'.
Anyway, only history gets to re-define 'credible'.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: London
Posts: 223
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Has it occurred to anyone that all this is happening really a very, very long way away from the UK and that the US 7th Fleet, Japan and South Korea all dispose considerable naval and air assets in the region? Consequently any contribution the RN could make would be negligible at best. Is it really in the UK's best interests to get involved in this?
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Near
Posts: 109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Given the current overstretch of UK forces, would it really be wise for the UK to get involved just to look like we're a 'world player'. Let those in the vicinity assist any naval blockade. The US can spare a naval fleet - the UK can't. (Again, thanks Tony 
....)
....)
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: London
Posts: 223
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
http://www.c7f.navy.mil/Pages/shippage.htm
And that's not even counting the JMSDF or the RoK Navy.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: UK, sometimes!
Age: 74
Posts: 436
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is so much like the state the UK Military was in at the start of WWII! Continual running down of equipment, manpower, ability, etc, until suddenly - guess what - you need what you no longer have. Don't those with the power read history books?
I am so glad that my particular fleet is down to less than 20 aircraft and we don't have a spares or manpower problem
I mean, it's not as if we are needed do do all those different tasks at home, in Iraq, in Afghanistan, the waters of the Middle east, etc. God forbid if the N Koreans had submarines, we might be needed there too! What - they have 
Oh dear - best we order some more aircraft and cancel that day off I had booked for next June 
MadMark!!!
I am so glad that my particular fleet is down to less than 20 aircraft and we don't have a spares or manpower problem
I mean, it's not as if we are needed do do all those different tasks at home, in Iraq, in Afghanistan, the waters of the Middle east, etc. God forbid if the N Koreans had submarines, we might be needed there too! What - they have Oh dear - best we order some more aircraft and cancel that day off I had booked for next June MadMark!!!
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: my own, private hell
Posts: 109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well the 10-year Rule was in place from Aug 1919 to Mar 1932. If it had been revised in Sep 1929 it would have been 100% effective; being only 27 months late in being abandoned means it was still right for 80% of the time. Can't you understand simple Treasury mathematics....
Last edited by BluntedAtBirth; 16th Oct 2006 at 14:04. Reason: Typed original with boxing gloves on
Indeed. Not sure what extra capability the RN could provide to this little lot:
http://www.c7f.navy.mil/Pages/shippage.htm
And that's not even counting the JMSDF or the RoK Navy.
http://www.c7f.navy.mil/Pages/shippage.htm
And that's not even counting the JMSDF or the RoK Navy.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
[SIZE=2]Or we could use the CVS as they were originally deisgned - to provide ASW screening for US CVBG. They might be particularly interested in this given that they've just about got shot of the S3 Viking and would struggle to put an ASW screen up currently. A ship capable of operating up to 12 dippers might be quite useful, particularly in shallow waters......P3 / Merlin hunter-killer combo anyone?
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: London
Posts: 223
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How do you work that out? Both the Ticos and the Burkes have extensive and highly modern ASW suites and are armed with SH60s and/or VL ASROC. Not to mention the SSN's. As you correctly mention, JMSDF is no slouch at ASW either. Plus there's 100+ P3's in theatre even in peacetime.
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: shrewsbury
Posts: 340
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
[QUOTE=Mad_Mark;2911578]This is so much like the state the UK Military was in at the start of WWII! Continual running down of equipment, manpower, ability, etc, until suddenly - guess what - you need what you no longer have. QUOTE]
Wrong MM.
We are in a much, much worse state than at the end of the thirties. At least then we still had a navy. And we had a state of the art fighter just about in service. Unlike Eurofighter now, the Spitfire was just what the RAF needed.
Wrong MM.
We are in a much, much worse state than at the end of the thirties. At least then we still had a navy. And we had a state of the art fighter just about in service. Unlike Eurofighter now, the Spitfire was just what the RAF needed.
