The only SOP that really mattered on this occasion was the one that says that under no circumstances do you ever surrender your command. The reality of the situation was that it made our navy a laughing stock and encouraged the Iranians in the belief that they could very effectively continue tweaking the lion's tail.

That is the situation that still prevails. The inquiry report revealed a preoccupation with legal matters bordering on the obsessive. That is perhaps all very well if everyone is singing from the same hymn book, that, however is almost always never the case.

If one expects to be taken seriously - militarily that is - then situations that have a potential for robust threats need a robust response. Then you get taken seriously. 10, Downing St. isn't in the firing line when hard choices have to be made very quickly.

Having a 'clear cut extraction plan' is all well and good if you're not out-manoeuvred by your opponent (or if they bend the rules) - they're not stupid, after all. They made the right choice not to try and fight their way out. To have done so would have been futile and could well have risked the lives of more of our servicemen.

Re our naval presence + posture in the Gulf, if it's any consolation to those who think we've been humiliated, even the US appears to be reluctant to get involved in a shooting war with Iran.

Captain, Absolutely well said and clearly stated!

To do other than as they did....would. have required a White Head Band with the Union Jack affixed to the front....to make it a proper ritual suicide if they had fought. back only to die before surrender.

That would have accomplished nothing but the death of good people doing their Duty....when others more Senior to them had not done their own Duty.

Captain K

Who surrendered their command? The boarding party in the two RIBs? Are you really suggesting a suicidal firefight against things such as Heavy Machine Guns was the way forward? It was not combat. It was board and search. They lost situational awareness, and walked into a trap.You will be unsuprised to hear that much soul searching followed, and many changes were implemented.

How does this relate to current activities in the Strait of Hormuz?

Capt. - are you REALLY suggesting you'd be willing to sacrifice your own life (and maybe those of your mates) in a stupid face off in a muddy creek in S Iraq/Iran for nothing other than the "reputation of the Service"?

Knowing that every officer and politician above you would disavow your action and do their damnedest to make sure you were totally forgotten??

If so I think its better for everyone, especially your friends and family, that you no longer are in the military

Investment ín the development, planning, construction and maintenance of a countries armed forces requires that those forces present, apart from offensive capability, a realistic and believable defence threat. In other words, a credible deterrent.

That deterrent value, was, in the incident under discussion, swiftly swept away by the Iranians who then went on their national TV network to expose RN personnel to further ridicule and derision.

At no point in this discussion have I suggested that a short range exchange of small arms fire would have provided an immediate solution. Those here that think I have, are ahead of themselves. I do not believe that the Iranians would first have opened fire. That wasn't necessary - they had read the situation all too well.

In the absence of any close support, all our people could do was maintain a separation and withdraw. Any moves by the Iranians towards a forcible arrest could then have been met with an appropriate response and one that required a demonstration of resolution and determination.

It seems that judged by the content of some of the criticisms aimed at me that appeasement still enjoys a certain popularity.

The US Navy had a similar event.....with two boat crews.

The Iranians gained a propaganda advantage and we lost face in the process.

No one got killed or wounded although some careers took a bit of a detour.

At some point this game is going to take a turn for the bad and some good people are going to die.

When that happens....I pray that our response is immediate, over-whelming, and decisive.

We can look back to the initial attacks on the Falklands where the Royal Marines gave a good account of themselves but confronted with absolutely no hope of winning.....did the right thing and laid down their arms.

It was not an easy thing for them to do but they did what was necessary and lived to fight another day.

Hmm, but given our current financial limitations do you think Joe public will be willing for our govt to lavish money on new frigates etc to protect shipping in the Gulf? I'd contend they'd prefer us to get the deal with Iran back on track and spend the money on hospitals, adult social care etc instead. From your language I guess you read the Daily Mail and spend a little too much time reminiscing with your mates down the Legion. I guess you must be furious with Trump's love-in with fat Kim, yes?

You could make a start by paying the Iranians the money you owe them for the Challenger tanks - an issue which still irritates the hell out of the mullahs but, oddly enough, is never mentioned in the British Press........................

It has been mentioned a few times recently, often when there is a story about Nazarene Zaghari Ratcliffe and the suggestion that repaying the money might ease the path to her release.

Deadpan

As a maritime trading nation, if you haven't got enough frigates to protect your trade routes then it might be that new hospitals and social care come way down the list. The balance of your comment is foolish and pointless guesswork and wide of the mark..

Captain - so what size of surface fleet would you propose we maintain? Given half our trade currently comes from Europe, how many frigates do you suggest we position in the Channel?

Fact of the matter is the world is a much different place to it was in the latter half of the 20th century - the playing field is much more level, and smaller nations like the UK can't project power like we once could.

I don't see a huge amount or even a mere trickle of crude oil, iron ore, bauxite or other bulk commodities coming directly from the EU. I do though see transferred liberal quantities of overpriced foodstuffs courtesy of CAP guaranteed prices to French farmers. Presumably if hostilities haven't commenced in Europe then all will use the Channel Tunnel thus obviating the need for any gunboats - They could though do sterling work picking up Iranian channel swimmers who seem to have been persuaded that the pleasantries of life in GB exceeds that in their native land.

"the world is a much different place..". Human nature doesn't change. It still respects strength. There are three elements essential to the international projection of power: The will to do so, confidence, and well balanced and adequately sized and resourced military forces. Two out of three won't do it. If you believe you can, you will. If you believe you can't you won't.

"Projection of Power" = fighting wars all over the place

that's been a spectacular success since 1990 I don't think..............

$1 billion warship, damaged / destroyed by 2 guys in a fibre glass boat... USS Cole.

So are warships better protected now or worse protected.

But the Cole was in port - a sitting target! The force protection measures were not great.

The Royal Navy and other major navies have responded to the threat, including:

More weapons on the upper deck
Better sights
Anti FIAC drills built into sea training
0.50 Cal HMG carried by Lynx, later Merlin and now Wildcat
Better night vision equipment
Miniguns
Development of DS30M Mk2, a 30mm cannon controlled from the Operations Room (so operators not cold/wet/hot....), with an integrated Electro-Optical system, computers to predict when the target is moving to, and air bursting ammunition
0.5 Cal HMGs
Wildcat to carry Martlet - a maritime vesrion of the Lightweight Multirole Missile intended to engage small boat type targets (Wildcat HM2 can carry ten)
Experiments with a ship launched version of Martlet
Better and more EO systems to detect and track small craft

.....and other things such as training and tactics, and increased awareness of the maritime domain.

The same USS Cole that was transported to a repair facility and put back into service and currently serving in Operations at sea....that USS Cole?


https://www.public.navy.mil/surflant...s/default.aspx

Oh I am aware of it went back into service after $1/4 billion repair. It was a new ship by the time in effect with everything that needed to be done and it was 18 months out of service. It was destroyed by a $200 boat with C4. Next time they wouldn't get that close but next time they may be using something else like lots of RPGs or something a bit bigger.

My comment directed at the view that UK MOD should spent £1 billion on a ship to project power a $200 piece of armament takes it out.

Yes, and that is likely to happen again unless the vessels sentry systems are awake. The threat level is ramped up if the pirates think that they are liable - for one reason or another - to escape with their lives - others won't care either way.

Perhaps a part answer might be an exclusion zone of around 1,000 yards with the ship at the center. Any suspicious object entering gets a warning, maybe two. Then obliteration.

It's pretty certain that a determined attacker will be effective. Even a drone with a pound of Semtex strapped to its underside will create more than a big bang.

Good luck with that in the current climate.

I think someone suggested previously that a far cheaper and easier option would be to re-flag any British commercial shipping entering the straights under a flag of convenience. We've got enough tin-pot tax havens under our jurisdiction which no doubt would be more than happy to oblige.

Weird how it appears to have gone quiet in that neck of the woods. News cycle moved on? Back channels being explored?