Making a statement to MPs in the Commons, the foreign secretary announced plans for the UK to help to develop a maritime protection mission in the Gulf.
Mr Hunt said he spoke with a "heavy heart" but if Iran continued to act as it had, it would have to accept a "larger Western military presence" along its coastline.
The protection force to be created by European countries would not include the US because, Mr Hunt insisted, Britain was not part of President Trump's policy of "maximum pressure" on Tehran.
US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo told Fox News the "responsibility" fell to the UK "to take care of their ships".
US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo told Fox News the "responsibility" fell to the UK "to take care of their ships".
OK buddy, so if the Royal Navy see a Yankee ship in trouble, we'll just sail on by OK? However, in a way he's right, problem being we don't have much of a navy left to protect our ships. And would those be the ships registered under a flag of convenience crewed by foreign seamen?
Our Royal Navy currently has 19 ships of which it’s likely only six are available at any one time due to re fits and more serious defects. We could fit our standing army into Wembley Stadium and have space to spare. Successive governments have sold our defence capabilities down the river and it will take years to bring it back up to being an effective force. The world is not a safer and more stable place than it was 30 years ago and in fact it’s becoming more volatile by the year. God help this country if we actually have to face a real military crisis any time in the next 15 years and that depends on our government actually starting to reverse the previous cuts. It’s going to be expensive.
I'm sure that the Iranians will soon surrender at the sight of Belgian and Luxembourgian 'warships' appearing over the horizon. We don't need a Euro Navy, we need a determined and well resourced UK ROYAL Navy.
Hofstadt has done all he can to make life difficult for the UK during Brexit .. F**k him and all who sail in him
Wasn't it the Uk asking for the formation of an EU task forcé to patrol the área in question? Laughable that someone who thinks we should leave the EU with no deal is making a suggestion like that really, but that's Brexit for you. I can't even imagine what the bit about Hofstadt means - no one apart from those suggesting Brexit would be easy have really helped the deal in the UK, but I would imagine being asked for help in theStraits of Hormuz by the very politicians who decry European interference in the UK must be quite jaw dropping.
As for Iran, I saw the were stating on Iranian TV that they don't want to increase tensions in the área. Given that they have grabbed a ship flying the British flag from Omani waters (not even their own sea) any sort of commentary of this sort is utterly ridiculous. Apart from anything else, the UK has stuck with France and Germany in trying to keep the anti nuclear deal alive with Iran alive, when the USA was tearing it up.
We've worked alongside foreign forces from time immemorial, wtf has the EU, or any force they start up, got to do with it? I'm sure British Forces can work alongside them too, unless they're saying they won't cooperate because we left, in which case, kill em.
Just to add to this, the crew nationalities on this ship are - Indian, Russian, Latvian and Filipino, so there's at least one EU citizen on board
I think you'll find the Grace 1 was travelling through EU waters illegally which gives EU member states the right to impound it.
And of course we expected Iran to react, which is why the RN have seven warships in the region (Montrose, Ledbury. Blyth, Brocklesby, Shoreham and Cardigan Bay) as part of Operation Kipion and the new naval base in Bahrain (HMS Jufair), but even they cannot be everywhere within the Straits.
Gibraltar is not in the EU, neither is Morroco and I believe Spain has been critical of the seizure. If we are going to interfere in affairs outside the UK, we need more justification than that given in our lapdog press. Plus retaliation has been on the cards for over a week. Where is our expensive navy and air force? If the ship's GPS was hacked, why wasn't it remotely monitored by Department of Defence and warned ? This is what you get with morons like Mourdant in positions of power.
I think you'll find the Grace 1 was travelling through EU waters illegally which gives EU member states the right to impound it.
And of course we expected Iran to react, which is why the RN have seven warships in the region (Montrose, Ledbury. Blyth, Brocklesby, Shoreham and Cardigan Bay) as part of Operation Kipion and the new naval base in Bahrain (HMS Jufair), but even they cannot be everywhere within the Straits.
Gibraltar is not in the EU, neither is Morroco and I believe Spain has been critical of the seizure. If we are going to interfere in affairs outside the UK, we need more justification than that given in our lapdog press. Plus retaliation has been on the cards for over a week. Where is our expensive navy and air force? If the ship's GPS was hacked, why wasn't it remotely monitored by Department of Defence and warned ? This is what you get with morons like Mourdant in positions of power.
I think you'll find the Grace 1 was travelling through EU waters illegally which gives EU member states the right to impound it.
And of course we expected Iran to react, which is why the RN have seven warships in the region (Montrose, Ledbury. Blyth, Brocklesby, Shoreham and Cardigan Bay) as part of Operation Kipion and the new naval base in Bahrain (HMS Jufair), but even they cannot be everywhere within the Straits.
Gibraltar is not in the EU, neither is Morroco and I believe Spain has been critical of the seizure. If we are going to interfere in affairs outside the UK, we need more justification than that given in our lapdog press. Plus retaliation has been on the cards for over a week. Where is our expensive navy and air force? If the ship's GPS was hacked, why wasn't it remotely monitored by Department of Defence and warned ? This is what you get with morons like Mourdant in positions of power.
Our Royal Navy currently has 19 ships of which it’s likely only six are available at any one time due to re fits and more serious defects.
That's not correct.
We currently have one aircraft carrier, with the second becoming operational next year, two assault ships, six destroyers, fifteen frigates, fifteen minehunters and 24 fast patrol boats which also pack a hell of a punch.
We also have four Vanguard Class Ballistic Missile subs (with a total of 200 Trident nuclear warheads), three Astute Class hunter/killer subs with a further four being commissioned over the next four years (all carrying Tomahawk Cruise missiles) and four brand new Dreadnought Class Ballistic Missile subs ordered and under construction.
That's a pretty formidable force no matter what way you look at it.
Our Royal Navy currently has 19 ships of which it’s likely only six are available at any one time due to re fits and more serious defects.
We also have four Vanguard Class Ballistic Missile subs (with a total of 200 Trident nuclear warheads), three Astute Class hunter/killer subs with a further four being commissioned over the next four years (all carrying Tomahawk Cruise missiles) and four brand new Dreadnought Class Ballistic Missile subs ordered and under construction.
That's a pretty formidable force no matter what way you look at it.
Here is one way to look at it:
we can't protect our ships sailing up the Strait of Hormuz today.
More concerned about protecting our ships up the Straits of Dover.
Have many of our ships been attacked in the Straits of Dover recently? Say, this century..?
That's because the RN is there.
I think you'll find the Merchant Navy is a lot larger than the Royal Navy, which means we cannot provide protective support for every vessel and we never have.
It is feasible to provide escorts for tankers in the Gulf with a modest number of vessels. Especially when you are expecting something like what happened to the tanker to happen. I have heard naval experts say as much, including a former Royal Navy chief.
There are different scales of wrongness and I can't understand how we justify our right to be wrong because we are lower down the scale than other particularly despotic nations. So when say Boris Johnson said things that made Nazanin Zaghari Ratcliffe's extended incarceration more likely - the argument some gave to support him was that he wasn't the person holding her and the real villains were Iran. It can't be argued that they are vile and despicable and responsible for her inprisonment, but our standards can't be linked to theirs. You can behave pretty badly and be better than Iran and it is always a false comparison. Sometimes you have to be a bit tactful and strategic. It is ironic that after that error, he is soon to be Prime Minister whilst she still suffers in prison.
We should be looking at matters in that volatile area and be making considered decisions as to whether doing something is worth it and judging the implications of any actions. That isn't to say, we shouldn't stand up to them, but we should be sensible and strategic about it. This has become an almighty mess that probably plays into their hands more than it does ours! For me, it was avoidable and it wouldn't have made any difference to anything if it was avoided.
It is feasible to provide escorts for tankers in the Gulf with a modest number vessels. Especially when you are expecting something like what happened to the tanker to happen. I have heard navel experts say as much, including a former Royal Navy chief.
Exactly .. During WW2 .. another war story lol .. my dad had the misfortune to be in the Royal Navy on convoy escort duty, both Atlantic and Russian, as well as being involved in D Day off Normandy (That's another story). He started in 1941 as an 18 year old and as he said to me, finished in 1945 as a 50 year old. It was a tough duty. Merchant ship losses were horrific, especially crossing the Atlantic, mainly due to German U Boats torpedoing them. The point ? .. If the Navy can shepherd hundreds of slow, leaky vessels across thousands of miles of dangerous waters during the 1940s, surely it has the wherewithal to 'guard' a few tankers, in convoy, along the Arabian coast. IN CONVOY is the pertinent point.
Our Royal Navy currently has 19 ships of which it’s likely only six are available at any one time due to re fits and more serious defects. We could fit our standing army into Wembley Stadium and have space to spare. Successive governments have sold our defence capabilities down the river and it will take years to bring it back up to being an effective force. The world is not a safer and more stable place than it was 30 years ago and in fact it’s becoming more volatile by the year. God help this country if we actually have to face a real military crisis any time in the next 15 years and that depends on our government actually starting to reverse the previous cuts. It’s going to be expensive.
Our Royal Navy currently has 19 ships of which it’s likely only six are available at any one time due to re fits and more serious defects.
That's not correct.
We currently have one aircraft carrier, with the second becoming operational next year, two assault ships, six destroyers, fifteen frigates, fifteen minehunters and 24 fast patrol boats which also pack a hell of a punch.
We also have four Vanguard Class Ballistic Missile subs (with a total of 200 Trident nuclear warheads), three Astute Class hunter/killer subs with a further four being commissioned over the next four years (all carrying Tomahawk Cruise missiles) and four brand new Dreadnought Class Ballistic Missile subs ordered and under construction.
That's a pretty formidable force no matter what way you look at it.
Sorry to disagree Nick.
As things stand we have no operational carriers. The Queen Elizabeth is due to become operational next year but as we have already discussed on this thred it still has a host of problems, including leaking! The second carrier, Prince of Wales, hasn’t even begun proper sea trials so is unlikely to be operational until 2022. These ships can only operate STOL or VTOL aircraft. At the moment Britain has about a dozen of these and are being shared with the RAF for flight evaluation. All of which means that if the Queen Elizabeth was sent to the Gulf any time in the next six months it would probably be carrying less fixed wing aircraft that the Invincible did in the Falklands although the later was one third of the size of the Queen Elizabeth.
The Royal Navy also has a serious manpower problem. The Queen Elizabeth on it’s last leaky cruise was about a hundred hands short.
About bloody time but absolutely fantastic news for the pair of them and their families. Will never forget the sight of Nazanin's husband, Richard, on hunger strike, outside the Foreign Office, pleading for the release of his wife.
Comments
US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo told Fox News the "responsibility" fell to the UK "to take care of their ships".
OK buddy, so if the Royal Navy see a Yankee ship in trouble, we'll just sail on by OK? However, in a way he's right, problem being we don't have much of a navy left to protect our ships. And would those be the ships registered under a flag of convenience crewed by foreign seamen?
I certainly am. Don't want to see our boys deployed on the Ukrainian border or some other God-forsaken place.
As for Iran, I saw the were stating on Iranian TV that they don't want to increase tensions in the área. Given that they have grabbed a ship flying the British flag from Omani waters (not even their own sea) any sort of commentary of this sort is utterly ridiculous. Apart from anything else, the UK has stuck with France and Germany in trying to keep the anti nuclear deal alive with Iran alive, when the USA was tearing it up.
You can't get cheap fags in Bromley though
We currently have one aircraft carrier, with the second becoming operational next year, two assault ships, six destroyers, fifteen frigates, fifteen minehunters and 24 fast patrol boats which also pack a hell of a punch.
We also have four Vanguard Class Ballistic Missile subs (with a total of 200 Trident nuclear warheads), three Astute Class hunter/killer subs with a further four being commissioned over the next four years (all carrying Tomahawk Cruise missiles) and four brand new Dreadnought Class Ballistic Missile subs ordered and under construction.
That's a pretty formidable force no matter what way you look at it.
we can't protect our ships sailing up the Strait of Hormuz today.
I think you'll find the Merchant Navy is a lot larger than the Royal Navy, which means we cannot provide protective support for every vessel and we never have.
The point ? .. If the Navy can shepherd hundreds of slow, leaky vessels across thousands of miles of dangerous waters during the 1940s, surely it has the wherewithal to 'guard' a few tankers, in convoy, along the Arabian coast. IN CONVOY is the pertinent point.
As things stand we have no operational carriers. The Queen Elizabeth is due to become operational next year but as we have already discussed on this thred it still has a host of problems, including leaking! The second carrier, Prince of Wales, hasn’t even begun proper sea trials so is unlikely to be operational until 2022. These ships can only operate STOL or VTOL aircraft. At the moment Britain has about a dozen of these and are being shared with the RAF for flight evaluation. All of which means that if the Queen Elizabeth was sent to the Gulf any time in the next six months it would probably be carrying less fixed wing aircraft that the Invincible did in the Falklands although the later was one third of the size of the Queen Elizabeth.
The Royal Navy also has a serious manpower problem. The Queen Elizabeth on it’s last leaky cruise was about a hundred hands short.
About bloody time but absolutely fantastic news for the pair of them and their families. Will never forget the sight of Nazanin's husband, Richard, on hunger strike, outside the Foreign Office, pleading for the release of his wife.