Subscribe
Notify of
guest
0 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Merlot

An extremely timely and intelligent editorial that should be required reading for all interested in this nations military strategies.

Ryan

Thank you for the feedback. I’m glad you like it!

Iqbal Ahmed

‘boosting the number of sailors or manoeuvring ships into troubled waters does not necessarily mean a more effective deterrence. Deterrence requires calm, informed decisions based on an open diplomatic dialogue.’

Ryan, Amen to that.

Good to read a refreshingly different viewpoint.

What we need is long term planning that aligns the resources the British people are willing to spend on defence to realistic geopolitical goals. That will avoid humiliations like this cringeworthy posturing and foreseeable tanker seizure by Iran.

Trump telling us to look after our own ships safety was hopefully the shock the country needs to re-orientate our foreign policies away from blind support for the Yanks and aligning more often with Europe, whether within or without the EU. And using international institutions and allies and our soft power to magnify our influence.

Meirion X

Iqbal#
Deterrence has economic and diplomatic instruments as well as milltary instruments, that can be applied, before outright conflict.

Economic and diplomatic instruments of deterrence are more likely to work when applied against major powers, but less likely to work against smaller more isolated economies like Iran.

Yes, Britain should look after its own flaged ships. But it is not just British ships that sail the Gulf, but ships of other nations, so they should contribute by providing warships for escorting shipping though the Gulf.

Meirion X

To Ryan,
Please see my response to UnsolicitedViews’s post on the nuclear deterrent.
I also recommend that the Trolls should be ignored.
Don’t give them an existence.
It would be good if STRN had a means to block or reject personal replies to a post?
They can still reply to a general post, or make general posts.
I think It would be step forward in
preventing trolling.

Grubbie

Meirion X,Try reading through your own immature replies before making such a suggestion,they are the worst

Ron

An interesting article yet it appears to be missing something, the arguement as layed out is correct if all nations are equal in its requirements, but they are not. I suppose it comes down to the question what is a Navy for and is it defensive or agressive.
Many will say that a Navy is defensive as it cannot capture anything, but I will argue that depending on the nation it is also aggresive. Example, why does the US, Russia or China for that matter need a large blue water fleet, the countries are basically self supporting, to large to invade, god I would not even think about invading those countries even if they had no army, how would any nation police Russia, the US or China if they did manage to capture the country, they couldn’t. So their Navy’s are aggressive, it is a show of force that says that they can reach you wher ever you are. Countries such as the UK and Japan depend on the Navy to keep their lines of trade and communications open, if the trade link is severed they will not survive so their Navy’s defensive,you do not need to invade the UK or Japan you just need to cut their trade links by blockade. Countires such as Germany and France is a mix of both.
Throw this equasion into the mix of deterrece and you get a better picture, what would happen if the US lost a carrier battle group yes it would be a human desaster but is it a threat to the homeland, no, the same with Russia or China if it lost one of their naval battle groups but if the UK or Japan lost a frigate squadron it could cause the collapse of the nation.
Amphibious forces are aggressive, they can reach any part of the world, land, capture and hold territory, carrier battle groups are also aggressive as they can carry out carrier strike deep into territories.
I suppose the German concept of the risk fleet, a fleet not able to win but able to cause enough damage that you are unable to defend yourself against any followup was and is a good detterent but again with the US, Russia and China it would not make much diffrence except in human cost as you still cannot get to grips with their homeland land mass.

Cameron

It’s crazy how britain once held a quarter of the globe with not that many soldiers.

Geo

At that point in history though Britain was the preeminent industrial power on the planet and the quarter of the globe it held with “not that many soldiers” was, by and large, pre-industrial.

Phillip Johnson

It is possible if you divide you opponents and set them against one another.
Once France was out of the way it was always Empire on the cheap.

Merlot

Whilst agreeing with most of your post, it’s worth remembering (from a Russian point of view) that despite its size, both Napoleon and Hitler thought that they could capture and control the country.
Unlikely as it appears, history does have an ugly habit of repeating itself.

Callum

There’s a good reason for that many people thought they could take Russia. For all it’s size, the vast majority of important Russian territory is considered part of Europe and exceedingly vulnerable. Effectively, you take European Russia (basically everything west of Moscow) and you control the country. There’s not of anything left elsewhere to really bother you past that point. Hence why they’ve so often had a very aggressive foreign policy: more territory means more buffer space.

China is a sort of similar situation where the vast majority are on the eastern coast, although the numbers involved mean you’d need something like 100mn soldiers to effectively contain them. The US is pretty much unassailable; a huge military, a massive armed population, and well established industry spread across most of the continent. Throw in NATO, which includes several of the other big defence spenders, and you cannot conventionally conquer the US in any scenario.

J C

Someone asked Monty what was the greatest lesson of military history – he replied “Don’t try and walk to Moscow.

Iqbal Ahmed

JC, so true.

Thankfullly the Germans couldn’t fully motorise their Infantry due to resources and poor industrial organisation (lack of assembly line production).

They went far enough with their panzers. One shuddered to think what would have happened if Speer was in charge of the Reich’s economy from before the war.

Dern

Not much unless Speer was able to conjure up a lot of oil and steel out of thin air.

4thwatch

In prewar peacetime he could have. Trucks and other transport should have been a higher priority. They don’t date like Tanks.

Skb1968

The recent national humiliation of Iran seizing our one of our ships after telling us of their intention to do so obviously demonstrates the RN is too small, poor forward planning and a very worrying lack of will, both politically and militarily. People prepared to fight seldom have to, and that has been a cornerstone of the RN.
We will always act now as part of a coalition has not only allowed politicians to cut the RN so it now cannot deploy a cohesive national naval force when required but it seems we have lost the ability to think for ourselves.
Whilst it is easy to blame our politicians, the senior professional leaders of the British military over at least the last 20 years share a large part of the fault with their ‘can do’ and ‘more for less’ thinking. It has cost lives in that period and lead to the current debacle.
I sincerely hope that this current situation ends without bloodshed and the RN is significantly strengthened as a result.
Btw another great article as always.

UnsolicitedViews

“We will always act now as part of a coalition” – obviously that is what we will need to do, but we seem hell-bent on cutting ourselves off from our near neighbours, and the US has indicated they are not prepared to swing in on our side. So does that mean that we will need to bolster our armed forces dramatically to be in a position to act on our own in future?

Also, should we be reconsidering the appropriateness of our nuclear deterrent? No-one is going to attack us in a way that will make our nuclear deterrent of any conceivable value in the future, but we will be much more vulnerable in a future, when we are politically on our own, to conventional actions such as the seizing of the oil tanker.

Finally, why are we so keen to have these ships flying our flag? This particular ship is not owned by any British organisation, was not carrying British goods, and did not have a single British sailor on it. Why are we concerned with defending it? Surely we should stop allowing non-British ships to fly a British flag, then our exposure to threats like this will be significantly less, and arguably more in line with the resources we are prepared to afford for their defence.

Meirion X

To UnsolicitedViews,
You have a interesting viewpoint, of which I will think of a response, in due course.
Thank you.

Meirion X

To UnsolicitedViews,
I think it is far Too risky at contemporary,
to reconsider the need of a nuclear deterrent.
It is like a insurance policy, it might be needed in the future. But let us hope Not so! It is the Ultimate Deterrence!

At the time of Novichok incident, when the UK threatened Russia with diplomatic sanctions, Russia responded by making statement that they where a nuclear armed power and they should not be threatened with any sanction
because of their status as of procession of nuclear weapons.
It was a very chilling message!
If the UK had Not got a nuclear deterrent at this time, Russia could have attack a UK
military base, I think so.
Their leadership seems so evil!

Gavin Gordon

It seems to me that this ’20th century rise in the prominence of Deterrence Theory’ is just describing what was ever thus.

T.S

In relation to our Navy, the conventional deterrence levels should be based on our geographic situation ie an island nation dependant on shipping routes and the capability of our likely adversaries. The Royal Navy should be sized adequately to simultaneously: meet our need to protect the vital shipping routes in time of conflict, flood a geographic area with sufficient vessels to hold a nation at bay, and have sufficient means to strike when required. The vessels must also be able to overmatch most adversaries in armament and capability.
Ok, so financially we will not be able to match the US or China, but a decent increase in high and low end ships, submarines and weapons is required.
I think many politicians look at the total number of our assets without understanding that a rule of one in three, or two at best being available at any one time. That means currently 2-3 destroyers and 4-6 frigates. Just sufficient for peace time, but nothing spare when anything kicks off as we are seeing now. Therefore we do not have a functional Royal Navy deterrent against peer or near peer nation and the reality is surely a fleet of escorts 2-3 times higher?

John Clark

Absolutely TS, back in the late 1990’s (not that long ago), we had 40 frigates and Destroyers.

That’s the number required…

Labour and Conservative governments have pared the RN to the bone since 1991

The force mix of that number is open to debate, but the Iranian issue clearly shows any T31 design needs to have at least the punch of the current T23 GP.

We need to have a T31 that can really slug it out and not just wave the flag…

Cameron

I keep getting told we can’t afford a bigger escort fleet! Yes we dam can and like you said we had 40 not that long ago, it’s about will and government spending the money properly. We should Atleast have 10 type 31s built as a bare minimum increase and it’ll probably be the easiest increase to get. Japan has 26 destroyers alone!!

Aaron

As much as I agree with you, where does the money come from? Which hospital gets closed to buy you an extra type 26 frigate? Every budget has been cut to the bone, so you’re looking at the NHS, Education, and that’s it. 20,000 police officers at £1.3billion is cheap compared to the needs of the Royal Navy at £20 billion, for hardware plus all those extra crew and an annual budget increase to maintain those ships in the water. If some country gave us 20 brand new Frigates for free, we couldn’t afford the operating costs ket alone find any sailors to crew them.

Rick

Transfer foreign aid funds to defense. Billions available my friend.

Andy

A good starting point might be to stop giving India millions in aid and probably billions by the time we do stop just to subsidise their space program

Skb1968

You forgot to mention HS2 another pet project that is going to make the carriers and a few frigates look like small change.

UnsolicitedView

HS2 is infrastructure that will undoubtedly bring a financial return in time, although the length of time it will take for that return is arguable. The armed forces, vital though they are, are not. Let’s keep the discussion on an even keel by equating like with like.

Iqbal Ahmed

Ok. Get rid of the useless albatross around the Navies neck called Nuclear deterrence and we can have dozens of extra conventional ships.

We don’t have resources for both.

Dern

Iqbal suggesting something be cut from the Royal Navy? Colour me surprised. Just spin the wheel and see if it’s Amphibious Capabilities, the Carriers, the Escort Force, the RFA, or the Nuclear deterrent he wants us to scrap this week. No priorities beyond, just cuts at all costs. But what else are we to expect from him? After all his main interest is the removal of Britain from standing in the way of his world order.

Iqbal Ahmed

‘No priorities beyond, just cuts at all costs’.

Just like our elected political leaders of both hues, then!

‘interest is the removal of Britain from standing in the way of his world order’.

Nah, I want Britain to be a successful export oriented country like Germany and Japan. Not the self aggrandisation and pretensions without the substance, that is Britain today. Living off the narcotic fumes of nostalgia. The world does not owe us a living.

4thwatch

When you consider how the Grand Fleet managed to put to sea with 150 warships to take on the German High Seas fleet 31/5/16 with few so few Capital Ships in dock its amazing. Only HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Australia missed the battle. HMS Dreadnaught was flag of the ‘Wobbly 8’s’and so not part of the Grand Fleet. Not sure if one of the ‘R’ class was still working up.

Grubbie

Either forcing the UK into the arms of the US or forcing the EU to wake up and keep the UK close is not in Iran’s interest.Iran(like many Arab nations and STRN posters)is under the illusion that the UK pulls the strings of power in the world, and this is a chance to strip it away from it’s alliances.This crisis is no more nor any less an issue for us than anyone else. I can’t see what difference one carrier would make even assuming it had a full air group, fighting the Iranians without the support of its neighbours and access to their airfields is unthinkable.

Meirion X

That is the propose of an aircraft carrier/s, to allow the use of air-power without the use of nearby airbases, maybe due to use restrictions or unsuitable bases etc.

Rick

In 1966 the RAF convinced Defense Minister Dennis Healey the functions of aircraft carriers could be taken over by land based aircraft. Result, sixteen years later Argentina attacks because the Royal Navy no longer operates a fleet of carriers with high performance jets. With the QE’s that massive mistake will not happen again.

Meirion X

Grubbie#
Let me remind you, that the UK is a Permament Member of the United Nations Security Council, which gives Britain the responsibilities that allows the UK to pull the strings of power across the globe.

Grubbie

Note that France, Russia and China are also members of the security council . Note also that Iran was undeterred by the RN presence. Do you really think that the British public is prepared to endure an 8 year long war and 1/2 million casualties for your lunatic idea of pride when we can achieve much better results through careful diplomacy.
Part of reason for the decline in the RN is the £50 billion+ wasted losing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.Have you learned nothing?

Meirion X

Grubbie#
What Planet are you living On!!
We Won in Iraq! Saddam Hussain is dead!
The Iraqi people have got there freedoms back, it is a democracy again? So has Afghanistan! Girls can go to school again there in most places.
So Yes, I have learned a lot, it is worthwhile in fighting for freedom and democracy across world! Much more then you will ever learn!

Skb1968

Merion your posts are largely very good but the UK lost in Iraq and got out before the surge by the U.S turned the tide. As for Afganistan we are still their and there is no victory in sight but perhaps a score draw. Long term that country will slide back into the Stone Age. We wasted billions and more importantly maimed and killed service personnel paid the price for policians being able to say we got girls to go to school! The afghans could not believe we came back and a sane UK political or military leader should have known that. They all have blood on their hands for a lack of equipment, numbers and strategy.

OOA

Agree Skb, those wars were military and political failures which sapped treasure and perhaps even more importantly, the public mandate for our politicians to commit us to conflict.

We should therefore be more cautious before taking a fist step down a path which can lead to armed conflict – as we did when we agreed to seize the tanker off Gib. However, having taken this first step, my view would be that you have to follow-up with sufficient commitment such that you ensure the other side can not dictate the nature and pace of events.

No rational person would like to see this situation becoming a fast-track to outright war. On the other hand, we have (unfortunately) embarked on this path and need to ensure that we are not seen as lacking the stomach to see it through to eg. imposition of an embargo / blockade. If we didn’t want that, we shouldn’t have seized the tanker – or at least not hung on to it. We could have let it go on condition it did not end up in Syria (surely we could track it in the Med).

Will O

Unfortunately, & entirely predictably, we did let that tanker go, and it did end up in Syria & unloaded it’s $130mn worth of oil.

Iran didn’t keep their word, well who would have guessed? Question is why nothing was done as it approached Syria, Mr Magoo could have seen it was always headed there.

Meirion X

To Skb1968
I am disappointed that you take the view that Afganistan be allowed to slide back to the rule of the Taliban, after coming all this way over the years. I do admit that it has been a long fight! But I think a price has to be paid, in any fight against religious extremism and dogma!

We did stay in Iraq until 2009, but it was in the area of the South East where fighting was not as intense as in other areas.

The lesson to be learned is Not to just give up easily!

Skb1968

The trouble is we are trying to impose our way of life on others and it doesn’t work. When and not if the west leaves the afghans will return to there way of life. A harsh fact given the poor guys who went there and came back in a bag.

Will O

No actually, it’s the Taliban who are trying to impose their way of life on others. If the Taliban are allowed to remain, then the Afghans will not be able to return to their way of life.

Iqbal Ahmed

Merion, membership of the Security Council (an anachronism from WW2) doesn’t give us the right to insert ourselves in the affairs and conflicts of other countries without being invited.

The Security Council only deals with smaller and weaker countries. A Japan, India or Brazil can ignore the Council at will. For example, you think the Council can force its will on India over Kashmir?

Meirion X

If the issue is serious enough, the Security Council Will take action, most likely economic and milltary(arms embargos)
sanctions, if there is a consensus on the Council.

Airborne

You are quite funny and predictable. Without reading past the first line I knew you would mention the RNs carriers yet again. No matter the subject, you slag off the carriers. My local post office was robbed last night, I reckon it was because the RN has got two carriers. It’s just started raining those bloody carriers!!!!! You actually get extremely boring, but i love to read your posts to see how quick you mention the….yes….guess what, the carriers! I bet a carrier gets mentioned in your reply to me? Have a great day.

Captain Nemo

Iran, which is I guess why we’re here, is not even a significant power, you’re technically in clown territory.
So, rather than share my obviously indispensable thoughts on the state of the navy and UK deterrence in general I’ll simply share a brief anecdote for your consideration.
Shortly after Gavin gave his speech at RUSI about (amongst other things) our presence East of Suez, I asked a friend in Singapore whether the possibility of our basing ships there had made the news and if it had generated any talk? His response: “mostly laughter”.

Grubbie

Go on then,declare war on them and see what happens

Captain Nemo

Well that’s unlike you but okay, let me grab a pen.

JohnHartley

The 1998 SDR would have left the RN with 32 escorts. A good compromise between economy & capability. Shame Gordon Brown refused to fund it. So now we are down to 19 old and/or unreliable ships.
We are also short of submarines too.
However, even if we had more escorts & Subs, they are useless unless you have robust rules of engagement & are willing to put the grasping, politically motivated lawyers back in their box.
That does not mean we abandon international law. We are still a civilised nation, but we should look at the rules/laws that similar nations have & adopt any sensible measures they have.

Skb1968

I still think the SDR 1998 got the balance in strategy and numbers about right with an emphasis on the maritime that reflects the bespoke needs of the UK. Shame it was never funded properly as it seems to have stood the test of time

T.S

For me, we need to act quickly to reinforce our conventional RN deterrent. if any additional money is limited we still have options and would of course still require a real drive on recruitment.
Up arm our current River B2’s with a decent main gun and install martlet launchers and a CIWS to make them into light corvettes. They are fast, survivable for their size and would be perfect for the current situation. That could give us some options very near term.
Then licence build another 6 of them at another ship yard as BAE will not have capacity over the next 5 years, but with additional seaceptor and new medium asm once procured. Say cost of about £1.2 billion.
Add on an extra 5 T31 to be built 2025-30 with a decent medium capability and grow frigate numbers. About £2 billion.
So by 2025 we have a fleet of 12 corvettes for littoral security, a niche where currently we have nothing, and buy 2030 we have an extra 5 frigates on top. We would then have platforms in numbers that will allow us to not put a high end platform into situations they were not designed for.
All for this extra capability for just around £3.2 billion over ten years, £300 mill a year! Both of these ships can then support and escort the new littoral strike ships and make a really spiked force that can deploy rapidly.
Then from 2030 we can focus on getting the right number and balance of the high end stuff and build additional T26 and Destroyers.

Johnf

For protecting the straits of Hormuz and the Gulf area it would it make sense to have a number of Global Hawks or similar on oversight and a number of light attack aircraft e.g. Tucano’s, to patrol and see off any intrusions or attacks, until the Navy shows up?

Meirion X

The USN has Global Hawks patroling the Gulf. The RN has Not got any Global Hawks!

Bob

Or better yet, have the UAE and Omani forces pull their weight and defend the shipping lanes as they are supposed to do.

UnsolicitedView

Totally agree – decently armed Corvettes seem like the obvious solution to this and like issues. Affordable, capable (if armed sensibly) and cheap to run, we could have loads of them for the cost of one destroyer.

Fat Dave

Britain dominated the world, not through land power – as stated previously, Britain’s army was relatively small. Britain dominated because it projected power through the Royal Navy.
However, times have moved on. Technology dictates that global reach is projected through air power and for the UK imminently, through an embryonic space capability.
We all know the new carriers are redundant – a strategic nonsense and they have undermined a balanced fleet. We simply don’t need and can’t afford them. Air power can be expressed without the need for a carrier.
The failure of the RN to protect the oil tanker isn’t the Navy’s fault. We didn’t deter the Iranians sufficiently because we can never have enough ships. But fast moving aviation from any Middle Eastern base would have been sufficient to hold the Iranians at bay until the frigate arrived

Meirion X

TO FAT DAVE
You Are Lacking a lot of Brain Cells, if You didn’t see or Understand my post On the Propose of Aircraft Carriers??
I repost below.

That is the propose of an aircraft carrier/s, to allow the use of Air-power, or to project Air-power, without the use of nearby airbases, maybe due to restrictions on use, or of the suitability of nearby bases etc.

If You Don’t Understand my Commit, or other posters Comments, Why bother posting Here!!

You are totally Dim!

Some Mothers Do Have Them!!

Skb1968

Dave why are so many other countries building aircraft carriers? Please explain. You also seem to be advocating a return to the 60s and land based versus sea based air power argument. Carriers have survived because the sea covers so much of the globe and land based air power still cannot cover enough of it. As for equipment being redundant how about MBTs and manned aircraft genuinely nobody really knows.

Andy

Always assuming any middle eastern nation would always allow to use their soveriegn bases something that is not guaranteed

Grubbie

If no middle eastern nation is prepared to allow you to use their air bases, you are guaranteed to lose even if you could muster a carrier with a full air group.

Rick

And why’s that Grubbie?

Grubbie

You don’t understand logistics. Thats quite apart from the fact that the UK is far too small and has just been badly beaten in 2 wars fighting alongside the might of the USA.

Meirion X

Grubbie#

You Don’t Understand Any Thing!!

What Utter Rubbish You Sprout!

Some Mothers Do Have Them!!

P.S. You Should Seriously Consider Consulting A Medical Professional!

Jeff

Those are big insult words Meirion X. What class in Primary School are you in?

Airborne

No one beat me and my lads pal, nose to nose we outmatched them every time. However it is the weak willed, petty minded politicians, supported by similar brain dead civvies who constrain the military in its actions to suit their own pathetic needs and ideals. And methinks you may be another poster, with another avatar as the thing you have said is very very similar to another token troll.

Grubbie

Trouble was that you weren’t fighting nose to nose.500 dead squadies know better.

Airborne

WTF does that mean? I see you have never been in the green zone around the Helmand river, up in sangin, where contacts could be 10/20/50 metres! And 500 dead squaddies, firstly get the number right and secondly learnt to spell squaddie you computer cowboy troll. And by putting in that post you have confirmed that you are a troll, as no matter someone’s political view, they wouldn’t abuse the memory of the lads that have been killed in action.

Grubbie

OK I got it wrong, 633 up until 2016.

Airborne

You get a lot wrong pal, but using the dead lads to justify your weak and factualy incorrect point of view is troll behaviour.

Dern

Not a bad total considering that’s over a decade of warfare. More service personel died in Afghan from Road Traffic Collisions than Taliban Action.

Grubbie

BS

Airborne

Wow, good effort troll!

Dern

Given the amount of shit you spout here Grubbie it’s rich hearing you say calling BS. Take yourself for a pull through.

Meirion X

Dern, I would ignore him in future, don’t give it a existence!
I wouldn’t give it any negatives either!
Just 0!!

Airborne

Er sorry but no they didn’t! Where the hell did you get that chuff from Dern?

Grubbie

Seems to have taken 4 minutes for you to Google it though.

D J

A UK carrier with full complement of 36 F35B? Most of Iran’s airforce is made up of 2nd line fighters. A USN carrier can pretty much match the Iran airforce on it’s own (& there is already one there). Iran’s military power, just like Iraq under Saddam, is based mostly around its army. Giving Iran a bloody nose is not hard. Defeating Iran though is likely to involve quite a few body bags. Sometimes giving someone a bloody nose is enough to make them reconsider, other time it just makes them mad. Turning the other cheek though usually ends up with another black eye.

I often wondered if it might be worth putting a canal through Oman. Avoid the straights altogether. Yes it will be expensive, but is so is the current situation & has been for years.

Grubbie

Even if you are deluded enough to think 36 F35bs could force Iran to surrender, when do you think that we might be able to muster them all at the same time?

Airborne

Carrier related again!

Meirion X

Yes I agree! How boring he is!

Meirion X

I am sure that both Oman and UAE can afford to build the Gulf Bypass Canal.
What a good idea!

Airborne

See, carrier again!

Grubbie

See,carrier get sunk again!

Airborne

See wife runs of with carrier grubbie doesnt like carrier.

Andy

This is not the first time we have been humiliated on the world stage by Iran anyone remember HMS Cornwall in 2007 did that incident change anything?

We are the 5th largest economy in the world by any measure so clearly we have more than enough money and resources to properly fund a fighting navy or marine corps or army or air force for that matter. The issue is for generations we have decided a strategy of “managed decline” and to prioritise other spending commitments until and unless that changes defence will be a very low in the pecking order if proof were needed why did Jeremy Hunt turn down the role of defence secretary?

Meirion X

Jeremy Hunt turned down the job, because he felt by accepting the job, taken from Penny Mordant by default. He was Not going to take that bite!

Grubbie

No mention of the deadly Qaher 313?

Airborne

Ha ha ha wow you believe any old chuff son don’t you. Maybe look into that Iranian bluff and see every recognised commentator on aviation know it’s a load of reverse engineered crap, which is a plastic ground based demonstrator. As I’ve said before, subject matter knowledge soon helps in your posts. Give it a go.

Grubbie

The Iranians are well ahead of the USA and Russia, the Quaher 313 has a higher proportion of composites than any fighter ever built. In fact it’s almost 100 percent.
You should take western propaganda with a pinch of salt.

Airborne

Hilarious, absolutely hilarious pal, as the Iranian air force is full of reverse engineered (look it up) airframes from US supplied aircraft from the 80s. And yet again, your post confirms your troll credentials. I ask again, why is a mock up yet to fly so “deadly” yet hundreds of 5th gen F 35s, flying and fighting, are so crap in comparison? You know, the more you comment and reply, the more serious posters on here realise your bot like troll behaviour.

Will O

Higher proportion of composites? Composite meaning made of plastic. It’s a plastic mock up, has never flown, never will fly, because it’s purely a plastic mock up worthy of GI Joe, that was built to taxi round a runway for the cameras. Look at the canopy on the thing, even that’s plastic. Then consider the design, even if by some miracle it got off the ground, one look at the wings tells you it’s 100% subsonic, a glorified trainer at best. Put a jet in that & the whole thing would melt.
Whatever claims Iran makes compared to ‘any fighter ever built’, just remember that unlike the Qaher 313, all those fighters it’s being compared with on paper, for propaganda purposes, were actually ‘built’.

Meirion X

Anyone can make a human mock-up, just like a statue, No movement at all!
It’s what’s inside that makes the difference, if it will be alive or not!

I would like to add a provisio here, an excerption, who can make human mock-ups!
Some Mothers Do Have Them!!

Airborne

Why is an Iranian mock up “deadly” and an aircraft with hundreds flying, already in combat, the F35 no good? Your troll credentials are coming out today for all to see.

Grubbie

The Quaher 313 has flux capacitor technology, this enables them to fit a powerful radar into a radome that leading companies in the west would consider to be impossibly small.It features innovative and extensive use of adhesives.Also well ahead in use of commercial of the shelf electronics architecture.

Grubbie

No,no,the Quaher 313 is sophisticated and not a fantasy,unlike other airborne vehicles.

Airborne

Like I said, your replies are now laughable! Anyway I think I have shown you up enough on this conversation my little bot/troll! Tell your troll computer programmer to do a bit of subject matter research, then the piffle you post may be at least believable. See ya!

Grubbie

Thick as mince

Airborne

And there we go, resort to child like name calling! You have been called out and found wanting! Really really sad!

Merlot

Sorry Ryan, but your audience have strayed somewhat off subject I fear.

Airborne

You are correct, my apologies to the author! I do seem to enjoy challenging those who waffle and act like trolls! I will try to ignore them, but I cannot promise anything!

Grubbie

Yes, back to the subject in hand. The republican guard controls over half of the Iranian economy, it’s not surprising that they don’t behave according to conventional diplomatic rules, I would be surprised if they didn’t have a financial interest in the oil tankers cargo.
No one advocating for more resources for the RN has put foward anything near a convincing strategy. Constantly demanding more high profile ships instead of MPAs or SSKs is ruining their cause, what we need is a viable plan.
This particular desperate act by the IRG shouldn’t be used to justify ill thought out procurements or even worse, ill thought out military action.

Meirion X

Due to Idiots, I didn’t mean you Airborne!
You are a sensible a Guy!

DaveyB

Gentlemen, gentlemen and those not sure, calm down.

The problem we are always going to face is that too much oil is going through the straights of Hormuz. This is one of the reasons the Saudis have invested in upgrading the Trans-Arabian pipeline to the Lebanon and the Petroline, or the East-West pipeline in Saudi Arabia stretching from the oil fields in the east to the Yanbu port on the Red Sea. There are also the two from Iraq to Turkey and Israel.
Until the pipelines are upgraded so the Hormuz bottleneck is removed, it should be one of the Government’s main interests to step up the presence, with whatever we have available.

Meirion X

I would seriously consider ignoring the last poster, before mine!
I do not need to mentioned the name!
Give it No existence!

4thwatch

Without ships there is no deterrence. Order one UK Type 26 per year immediately or bust. Is anyone listening?