Captured Sailors

W

Warbler

At the Start
Joined
Jun 6, 2005
Messages
8,493
I'm actually surprised no one's brought this one up given its prominence in the news (so what the hell I will :P ).

I must admit to being at a bit of a loss with it though shrug:: I think on balance they probably did the right thing, but it begs the obvious question about what warship is supposed to be for. It also serves to underline again, that the so-called coalition have gone for the wrong target in Iraq, for all the wrong reasons. Iran was always the more dangerous state, and as the showed in the late 70's they're not adverse to holding detainees for long periods.

I was slightly struck by the observation made by their former Ambassador to the UN when asked if they'd have done the same to the US navy. "No" he said without the slightest hint of hesitation
 
Oh, like the way the US bombers were in the air within the hour when their Embassy staff were taken hostage for over a year? Rubbish. The US didn't bomb Iran then and it won't now. It mounted a hopeless balls-up of a rescue mission instead.

Iran is now being able to divert attention away from its nuclear programme and make a big fuss about how peaceful it is, while it suffers the intrusion into its waters (whether true or false) by British aggressors. Note that they have fallen well short of demanding an official apology (something we're getting good at these days, what with wittering on about being 'sorry' for our part in the slave trade, as if that is somehow any more relevant). The quick shot of two male and the female naval staff showed them relaxed, clean, and smiling. The men were shaven, and later on they're shown eating what looks like a fairly good-sized meal. Iran is making a little point and will release them soon (after all the due scuttlings in diplomacy) - look, we could've had a show trial and banged them up in jail, but we won't. We're not the barbarians the USA would have you now believe - just as they didn't, when they armed us against the Iraqis back in the late 70s. Well, that's my take on it, and I'd venture a tenner it will come true.
 
Warfares moved on a lot since the 1970's (slight oxymoron I suppose if you'll forgive me it), also the US was still reeling in terms of its post Vietnam humiliation and was probably seen as being far from impregnable. I also think it would be useful to remember that the Soviet Union existed too, who were effectively able to offer a degree of protection to smaller nations if they were allied with them, and the Americans were that litle bit more wary of charging round the globe unchallenged as they do today.

On the subject of contemporary warfare, I've suspected for some time that destroyers and frigates are essentially obsolete, this whole charade just proves it to my mind. One of my first considerations was just what was HMS Cornwall doing in allowing its crew to be captured by a patrol of 'boghammers'? The more I considered it though, the more I came to realise they might have had little choice, which again only serves to underline how impotent they are.

A confrontation could easily have led to the ship being sunk, with a much greater loss of live and humiliation, (unless the US, 5th fleet were able to put up a sufficient air umbrella quick enough). Their whereabouts I suspect was crucial in this.

I couldn't help seeing some potential similarities with the Gulf of Tonkin incident, and we all know where that eventually led (although in that case the Americans orchestrated a non-confrontation to justify their follow up action, as it too revolved around maritime confusion, and wanton mis-reporting). At the moment know one's really been pushed into a corner so far that any kind of escalation might have precipitated

I can also see a bit of a parallel with Pan Am 103 too, where despite having nothing to do with the bombing, Libya was forced to not only acknowledge their role, but to pay compensation as well. On the one hand we're quite prepared to force others into saying sorry when they're guilty of nothing relating to an incident, but come over all indignant when the possibility of us being asked to do the same exists. I think on balance I'd say sorry, even if I didn't mean a word of it, get my people back, and then in conjunction with the US take a slightly more robust approach towards the rules of engagement. At the very least I'd want to have a 'sod off' super carrier in close attendence, rather than relying on a pretty inert frigate, which in this case is essentially an anti-submarine ship anyway
 
Just how has warfare 'come on' since the 1970s, warbler? You mean that countries don't invade each other? That there aren't any more genocides? That thousands of civilians aren't getting the sh1t bombed, shot, or slashed out of them? That we and the USA aren't constantly interfering in other countries, playing up non-existent bogeymen from infinitely militarily inferior nations? That the West's arsenal is comparatively much smaller, but much cleverer, than it used to be? That we don't hypocritically criticise A.O. Country for doing exactly what we've either done, are doing, or plan to do in terms of military ventures? I'm fascinated to hear... :brows:

Yes, we should just say, 'Oh, feck. You've got us bang to rights. Silly us. We forgot that you aren't a bunch of tree-swinging monkeys who wouldn't know a radar screen from a windscreen, and that you might actually be telling the truth, while we're lying through our nice white caps. Can we have our people back now, please, mister?" End of 'crisis', which we've engineered, one way or the other. But no. We have to go puffing up our little chests and trying to find a way in which to demonise the 'other side'. I'm sick of our two-faced intransigence in matters politic and military, home and abroad. I'm sick of us double-dealing all the time, beating a faux-patriotic drum but treating our homecoming injured troops like sh1t, while at the same time pretending we're worried sick for the handful in the rather good care of the Iranians. What a load of puffed-up, hypocritical dissemblance.
 
It's mainly a technology thing Kriz. The USA spends more on defence today than the next nearest 8 countries combined, which is truly massive when you consider who some of the countries on that list are. Never has such a large differential existed in recent history, and in conventional capabilities thus, the playing field truly has altered to such an extent as to make it unrecognisable from the 1970's. Hence why Gareth made the point about them having aircraft in the air?. In theory they can spot interceptors being fuelled and armed, before they even leave the ground, yet alone taking off. They have the capacity to shoot a plane down before it even crosses the coastline. A few 'boghammers' shouldn't have been able to get anywhere the British party thus. Indeed, even the Type 22 Frigate has a Lynx helicopter which should have been capable of responding to the threat, and sinking the Iranian boats before they got close enough.

I reckon the Iranians realising that they were taking on the British though, took a calculated gamble they we either wouldn't, or couldn't respond. I'd be very surprised if they would be prepared to risk doing the same to the Americans. They might have been prepared to do so in the 70's but the military gap is much wider today. In short the Cornwall wouldn't have been able to defend itself I believe against any land based aircraft had they chosen to sink the boghammers. The Americans by contrast could, and almost certainly would have.

A Type 22 frigate is periously exposed operating that close to the Iranian coast. It's primary missile system would quickly get over-loaded and given that it doesn't have a long-range 'fire and forget' system means that they'd have to wait for any incoming airborne threat to be within about 5 miles of them before they could think about defending themselves. In short HMS Cornwall is a sitting duck, against MiG 29's and Sukhoi's. Even the Mirage and F4's that Iran also flies could prosecute any raid thus.

By contrast an American carrier carries about 80 planes and can launch every 30-45 seconds I seem to think; plenty of time and plenty by way of capacity to see off any attack. They also have long-range ship to air missile systems which would mean they can fetch down any incoming, before the threat even emerges. It's these advances that has given them the capacity to do this, that I believe has altered the nature of warfare.

The wider academic principles of duplicity and slaughter etc remain the same, they always have done thoughout recorded history, the science however, has moved things on
 
HMS Cornwall is part of a combined task force and is in the gulf under the guise of protecting Iraqi oil fields. The Captain and crew would be aware of their position and I cannot believe she would have strayed into Iranian waters, because she is carrying out legitimate maritime operations I doubt very much that she was 'exposed'.
 
I don't think there's any suggestion that the frigate strayed into Iranian waters Tetley.

As regards her vulnerability, that would depend entirely upon the proximity of the air cover, and the US 5th fleet as they would be the only people capable of providing close in support, hence my asking about the proximity of the carrier group. A Type 22 frigate with Sea Wolf as it's primary air defence system would most certainly be vulnerable to an attack from about dozen fast jets though, unless able to augment its defence from outside of its own systems. Theoretically the Iranians could launch anti-ship cruise missiles at her, without even coming into range of the ships own defensive capabilities, the most they could thus hope to do would be to shoot down the incoming missile. In snooker parlance, you'd call it a shot at nothing.

Now it's documented that the 5th fleet were playing "war games" at the time of the incident, so what I'm increasingly starting to suspect is that these exercises pulled the carrier group away from their usual station, and left the Cornwall exposed. I don't know enough about the geographic location of Iranian air force bases, but I'm seriosuly struggling to believe they haven't got something within a few minutes fly time of the Shat Al Arab Waterway, which by proxy would be within quick strike distance of the Cornwall. Sea Wolf is a rapid fire system, but is designed for close contact with a very limited range.

I take the following from memory (so stand to be corrected). I seem to think the missile has a range of about 2 miles, (6 miles max). I think a Type 22 has now been fitted with the vertical launch version, which although 80% accurate can only get off 4 at a time before the costly (time wise) procedure of re-loading and re-programming starts. It takes about 10-15 seconds to achieve missile lock and to accept and confirm the targets co-ordinates. I seem to think the deck based version could fire 6, but required manual re-loading and once these had been used the ship would temporarily fail to function as a fighting unit. Although it leaves the launcher at Mach 2 and is probably the RN's 'best' anti-aircraft missile, it's lack of range makes any ship that depends on it, extremely vulnerable to a sustained attack from about 12 aircraft. I've also got it in the back of my mind that a type 22 frigate only carries 32 missiles anyway (God am I sad :laughing: ) without a US air umbrella the ship would most definately have been vulnerable (imho) which is what led me into the Gulf of Tonkin anology in terms of orchestrating an incident.
 
But Warbler, no 'war games' would be taking place in the Gulf without informing the Iranians, who are not on a war footing with the UK, or even near it, would they? If you are charging about the neutral Gulf in little fast attack boats, you want to be sure that your 'pretend enemy' is well aware that you aren't, in fact, launching real attacks. Also, what happened to the 24-hour AWACS flown by the USA over the Gulf since the late 1980s? Weren't they to be alerted that the traffic besporting itself in the Gulf wasn't for real, just playing at fighting? Of course they'd be aware of British naval plans, so that their own radar readings didn't go bonkers, so why weren't one of these able to inform the Brits - if their own side couldn't manage it - that they were travelling out of bounds, and that there was a sudden surge from the Iranian coastline towards them?

Given the refinements in what is essentially naval and airborne SatNav, this little story doesn't make any sense at all. Either we were testing out Iranian response readiness for some reason (but have a guess!) or we weren't in their waters at all. But in either scenario, our navy isn't operating by semaphore or running up a series of coloured flags any more, it's supposed to be provided with exquisitely-honed surveillance equipment, more than able to alert the seaborne (friendly and unfriendly alike) as to their correct, or incorrect, positions! Crikey, if the US Customs & Excise can scoot out to warn the off-course they're in US waters, can't our own navy manage to alert its officers of errant navigations? :D
 
Originally posted by Warbler@Mar 31 2007, 11:00 PM
I don't think there's any suggestion that the frigate strayed into Iranian waters Tetley.
Click to expand...
Exactly, so therefore the Iranians would have absolutley no reason to launch an attack, airbourne or otherwise.

ps your memory ain't that bad either.
 
Ah, there were journalists on the Cornwall, including the BBC's Ian Pannell. Only the day before the incident they filmed an item about the stopping and searching of boats in the region. The onboard reporters were mainly broadcast journalists - I believe that Terri Judd of the Independent was the only newspaper journalist on the ship.
 
Originally posted by Colin Phillips@Apr 1 2007, 07:40 AM
Perhaps I was seeing things, but I could swear I saw an exclusive report on BBC news from HMS Cornwall, shortly after the incident took place.
Click to expand...
Yes it was a day before they were arrested, they interviewed the lady of the taken crew............. :suspect:
 
Originally posted by krizon@Mar 31 2007, 05:17 PM
We're not the barbarians the USA would have you now believe -
Click to expand...
:brows: That tenners looking a bit ropey after today Jon.

In fairness it was Iranian police that prevented things turning really ugly, and I'm not sure they've always been quite so prepared to do so in the past. Having said that I can't think that images of hysterical crowds is doing much for Tehran's notion of wishing to appear rationale etc

My own guess is that this might very well drag, as I suspect the Iranians harbour aspirations to play a part in the final Iraq settlement, and these captured personnel just might get sucked into this? For such time as the Americans are holding 5 Iranian diplomats/ spies (delete as applicable) I can't see them handing these 15 back.

I've been scouring some of the papers today in an attempt to establish just where the 5th fleet were and why no air cover was available. AWACS and the Cornwall's own radar should have picked this threat up, and I'm increasingly coming to the conclusion that the ships radar operators weren't looking?. It wouldn't be the first time that a radar hasn't been working in a war zone (or turned off in the case I'm thinking of), although in the instance of HMS Sheffield the consequences were a bit more drastic.

Basically I'm coming to the conclusion that this was a British inspired coalition cock-up, but then sending an anti-submarine frigate with a missile system designed to shoot down planes at what amounts to point blank range in aviation terms doesn't smack of the smartest piece of military planning for the task in hand.

It also transpires (if the Sunday Times is to be believed) that warnings about this kind of a trap being sprung were received about 2 weeks ago, and a similar land based attempt had been made at Balad Ruz I also learn. In the latter case the ambushed Americans returned fire and were able to extricate themselves.

Lt Cmdr Horner of the near by USS Underwood is quoted as saying "Our first reaction is why didn't your guys defend themselves". I think he probably misses the point to some extent. Undoubtedly the Cornwall should have been alerted to the closing threat, and with a Lynx helicopter as well as it's own guns, should have been able to repulse the initial attack (firing a Harpoon missile on a fast patrol boat does seem a bit excessive at face value :laughing: ) but that's what they'd probably have been forced into doing unless the Lynx could be put to work, as I think they're armed with Sea Skua anti-ship missiles. I do believe though that without the necessary air support, they could easily have been sunk by any Iranian land based retaliation, unless they were able to fight a speedy retreat.

Something's gone badly wrong, and this has got military incompetance (planning and Command and Control) written all over it, imho
 
I find it hard to believe that the British military with all it's digital technology and mapping software could have inadvertently mistook a national boundary. Never happened in Ireland at least.
 
Warbler, you've just referred to the Arabian Gulf as 'a war zone'. Perhaps you're privy to some state of action that the rest of the world doesn't know about, but as far as most of us are concerned, there isn't a war going on in the Gulf.

We know it's regularly patrolled by various countries claiming a piece of the sea map, including Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, the Kuwaitis, the Iranians, down to the Omani Navy. It's also a very busy shipping lane for the import and export of goods via international ro-ro ships, as well as oil tankers, Customs & Excise vessels, the police, rescue, dhows, private boats and yachts, let alone larger naval ships. It's amazing how none of these - with far fewer smart-alec aids than the Navy - have managed to blunder into forbidden sea space and cause diplomatic incidents over the past several decades, isn't it?

The British and American navies have for many years maintained a presence in the area, well before the Gulf War or the later invasion of Iraq. They were busy in the waters around the Arabian Peninsula, but particularly the Gulf, during a number of crises going back to the 1973 oil embargo and the subsequent Iran-Iraq conflict, to name but two examples. We are not strangers to manoeuvring around the Gulf, by any means: the US and Britain have also been responsible for training the naval officers of the Gulf states (in the same way that they have presented training packages to their air forces) for decades.

If the helmsman was asleep at the wheel, as it were, then why weren't more British boats veering off-course? Odd that we should find just one playing silly-buggers, surely? But abysmal that we've done it at all, given our long-standing seaborne record in the region.
 
My own reckoning, on what may happen to them if not set free in the next couple of days.....or by easter at leasts.....

I think they may be put on trial and held for some time, just like a human shield, the reason being if as expected they are making a nuclear bomb???

This will then stop the show of strength being used in the area re. the yanks build up of all their strike forces!With the aim of taking out the nuclear site that's being used to make their own bomb ............!!!!!just a thought!!!!!! :eek:
 
Yes, there's nothing quite as effective as blasting a nuclear bomb factory for helping world peace along... after which, the Americans can make a U-turn and blow up those in Israel, just to show they're even-handed and not at all biased in their demands for no nuclear proliferation.
 
Back
Top