Tanker War Redux

[Chris Werb]

I honestly don't see how any military response option we have, regardless of whether we had a carrier, would work out. Commando raids are just another hostage taking opportunity for the Iranians and sinking the tanker in port accomplishes nothing Some kind of asymmetric response against their oil infrastructure would apply economic pressure, but might well result in a violent and unpredictable response.

 

Realistically, one carrier would be a lot less useful than a lot of small escorts given we are talking c 30 tanker movements a day that could be targeted over quite a large area. It would disrupt the flow, but some convoying might be possible too. Putting marine detachments on the tankers, if the owners consented, would make capture much more problematic and provide a trigger for some limited military response

 

It annoys the shit out of me that the Gulf states aren't already paying for and organising this themselves.

[Chris Werb]

Some kind of containerised RWS that could be lifted on and off ships with a helicopter might help. A bolt on, manually aimed 0.50 gatling installation or even an M3 on a buffered mount would offer a bit of deterrence/defence against both surface craft and helicopters. Unless we have scrapped them (which we probably have), we should have a good number of Starstreak launchers in store and we recently bought more missiles. The newer unitary multi mission missile can be used from those launchers too.

[Chris Werb]

 

So Stuart, the best you can come up with is harassment of Vietnamese fishing vessels vs the hundreds of thousands of lives conflicts we have electively participated in have taken at vast expense on our parr. That's not self flagellation Stuart. It's trying to apply morality and common sense to our foreign policy.

Sensibly, we are not getting into an unwinnable naval arms race with China. Why should we? The Japanese aren't sending forces to help contain Russia on our doorstep, are they?. It would also cost us far more to project power there than for Japan to build and maintain it or equivalent deterrent power in situ. Now remind me what % of GDP Japan spends on defence.

Going to keep it short because of recent news.

 

Russia is Japan's neighbor too and has island claim dispute with them. Their bombers fly near Japan sovereign territory, once in a awhile, flying into it.

 

Japan's 1% is like typical NATO countries 2%.

 

Japan just changed over to new defense laws 4 years ago. The defense budget is going up.

 

Pressure on Russia in the East would dampen any expansion idea in the west.

Sorry, presumably presumably this is the post you asked me to respond to over on the other thread.

 

I was aware of your dispute with Russia, but there is essentially no chance of that kicking off as neither of you has the inclination, nor the capabilities in place and there is zero chance of a beneficial outcome. 1% is 1%. Its clear from that prioritisation of funding that Japan does not feel it is in close proximity to a massive existential threat or it would have vastly increased its military spending and preparedness and would have a crash programme in place to develop a viable nuclear deterrent. Your main genuine concern appears to be the DPRK going rogue, hence the focus on BMD. Lacking a land border means you won't be invaded by the world's largest WW2 reenactment group. Theres a reason someone had to come up with large radioactive monsters to keep your self defence forces in business

[JasonJ]

 

 

So Stuart, the best you can come up with is harassment of Vietnamese fishing vessels vs the hundreds of thousands of lives conflicts we have electively participated in have taken at vast expense on our parr. That's not self flagellation Stuart. It's trying to apply morality and common sense to our foreign policy.

Sensibly, we are not getting into an unwinnable naval arms race with China. Why should we? The Japanese aren't sending forces to help contain Russia on our doorstep, are they?. It would also cost us far more to project power there than for Japan to build and maintain it or equivalent deterrent power in situ. Now remind me what % of GDP Japan spends on defence.

Going to keep it short because of recent news.

 

Russia is Japan's neighbor too and has island claim dispute with them. Their bombers fly near Japan sovereign territory, once in a awhile, flying into it.

 

Japan's 1% is like typical NATO countries 2%.

 

Japan just changed over to new defense laws 4 years ago. The defense budget is going up.

 

Pressure on Russia in the East would dampen any expansion idea in the west.

Sorry, presumably presumably this is the post you asked me to respond to over on the other thread.

 

I was aware of your dispute with Russia, but there is essentially no chance of that kicking off as neither of you has the inclination, nor the capabilities in place and there is zero chance of a beneficial outcome. 1% is 1%. Its clear from that prioritisation of funding that Japan does not feel it is in close proximity to a massive existential threat or it would have vastly increased its military spending and preparedness and would have a crash programme in place to develop a viable nuclear deterrent. Your main genuine concern appears to be the DPRK going rogue, hence the focus on BMD. Lacking a land border means you won't be invaded by the world's largest WW2 reenactment group. Theres a reason someone had to come up with large radioactive monsters to keep your self defence forces in business

 

 

Of course large radioactive monsters is part of entertainment, charm, and even part of people to people exchanges, such as the model of a large Godzilla statue gifted to the crew of USS Ronald Reagan in front of the namesake statue onboard, handed over by the man who created Godzilla or was the man in the rubber suit (forget which). But I guess that is just a form of sucking up as a "defense parasite", could be an entertaining thought for some.

 

I recall the good members on these boards often making the point that it is not really about chasing after numbers. The 2% requirement has resulted in the number crunching people to artificially boost their numbers to get nearer that 2% mark. The point is that actual results made out of the available defense expenditures. Japan has 4 helicopter carriers, 8 DDGs, about 20 submarines, another 30 or so destroyer or large frigate size warships. Top class ASW. Top class mineseeping, among other characteristics. New P-1 aircraft to replace the P-3s, about 80 of these MPAs. And the force is a very active force. But sure face value does matter, but the substance behind it is the beef in reality.

 

The primary concern has been China. Ask a defense minster about their concern is, of course DPRK is mentioned, but what they can be quoted in saying is "China, China, China". Japan's defense posturing regarding China is undeniable. It hurts to post the obvious, sorry. Given the challenge of staying up in pace with China, it is tempting to some strategic thinkers to keep things calm with Russia even if Russia pokes Japanese territorial airspace once in while. To take the full brunt of both China and Russia, lets be serious about this now.. But UK defense partnership could help create a you scratch my back, we'll scratch your back, kind of situation.

 

In all honesty, Japan has taken some steps that go in close cooperation with NATO such as participated in joint cyber training in Estonia. JMSDF training ships also have made stops in Europe before. But so too have PLA Navy ones IIRC. Japan also has created some relations with the Ukraine, once having a so-called "year of Japan" in the Ukraine theme for the year 2016 or 2017. Of course to what extent should Japan support the Ukraine requires looking into whether of not the Ukraine has their house in order, many could argue that it could be a money sink. Regardless, Japan did provide support for the Ukraine. So there is a trajectory in that direction that probably could go further if UK-Japan defense relations deepened.

 

Yes, Russia does have to be concerned about China as well. And in some way they may be reflected in the fact that the navies of Japan and Russia to maintain some direct contact with good will port visits and once in while, joint-training in search and rescue. But there should be no mistake that joint-training in combat between Russia and China continues to occur on a fairly regular basis. But even that regular basis is out done by the number of times the JMSDF conducts joint-training with the USN.

Edited July 20, 2019 by JasonJ

[Chris Werb]

Firstly, you do rely on a US funded defence umbrella - it's not just about providing capabilities you lack, but platforms and warm bodies that you could easily provide yourselves too. The examples you post of support to European NATO are welcome, but tiny. You haven't, as far as I am aware, posted any plans to deploy a carrier battlegroup to operate against European Russia. You are not a member of NATO, so, in the event of a war with Russia in the West, you are not duty bound to participate and it would be against your best interests to do so. Remember that Japan did not attack Russia in WW2 despite its being at war with its key allies in Europe. You could also make a pretty strong argument that you are more of a threat to Russia than they are to you as you have an outstanding territorial claim to islands in the Kurils chain and they don't appear to be after any of your territory.

 

Yes, you have a significant navy, but its force structure has not remotely expanded (has it expanded at all?) to match Chinese expansion since the 1990s. I think its size and force structure since 1989 is probably more likely the result of institutional inertia (and to an extent perceived national prestige) than planning against anticipated scenarios actual or deterrent. Were you taking China seriously, again, we would have seen a crash building programme in an attempt to match the Chinese who had essentially no modern warships until c. 1999. That and/or you would have come up with various assymetric responses to counter their surface fleet - again lacking as far as I can see.

 

On level of defence spending, you are making the argument that what you contribute is OK as it is a smaller percentage of a much larger GDP. Well, if we looked at it that way, NATO would have a lot of countries paying many times their entire GDP as a percentage. It is obviously going to be difficult to persuade a small, economically troubled country like Portugal that is very far from any physical threat that it needs to spend a huge percentage of its GDP on defence. You on the other hand argue that you have the World's biggest military problem right on your doorstep and can only manage 1% (and increasing, but presumably not by much).

 

Your naval force structure looks mainly designed around a limited home defence role, plus a much more extensive blue water fleet, almost completely lacking land attack capabilities and presumably designed for deep ocean escort work before the Chinese modernisation/expansion. It's hard to envisage who that would be useful against today, given that distant blockade against China by yourselves or blockade of yourselves by China would inevitably result in attacks on your home base that you currently have no means of responding in kind to and thus deterring. Putting that capability in place (which the South Koreans notably have), as well as beefing up the defences of you home islands would appear to be a more worthwhile investment than excessive spending on the blue water fleet. We both know China is desperately reliant on both exports and imports. Unless Xi goes barking mad, it is not going to go to war with key trading partners or do anything to ensure they place sanctions of blockades on it.

[JasonJ]

Also, while the below linked post wasn't quoting you, I have a feeling he may not answer. But since it is relevant to your big post regarding China, maybe you would like to answer in his place. Either this thread or the other thread is fine of course.

http://www.tank-net.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=44032&p=1438686

Edited July 20, 2019 by JasonJ

[glenn239]

The Iranians are showing an ability to establish a naval presence with essentially the equivalent of WW2 PT-boat technology.

 

Impressive and worthy of some respect.

 

MB's moving on the water are pretty exposed to PGM's if the USAF starts shooting. The plan must be something like that everyone jumps overboard before impact.

[Tim the Tank Nut]

I keep checking the BBC news page online assuming that it would be current and accurate coverage of tankers in Iranian custody. Instead it seems to be an unending analysis that the entire affair is the fault of the United States.

I'll go looking for an Egyptian or Hungarian news source...

[Stuart Galbraith]

Well, its not ours.

[wendist]

Well, its not ours.

Technically it's "ours" i guess but no one seems to give a shit here and in the meantime everybody else seems to think it's yours.

[Stuart Galbraith]

Oh, its ours now, inevitably.

 

You are right though, the only British thing about it is that its got 'London' on the Stern. I gather there isnt even any Brits on it, although no word on the nationality. Not that it changes anything of course.

 

Lots of retired naval officers are coming up on BBC and Sky saying this would never have happened if both the major parties hadnt neglected the Royal Navy for the past 2 decades. Oh the hilarity...

Edited July 20, 2019 by Stuart Galbraith

[Nobu]

Short of finding a drone to shoot down, both sides have probably reached the point of diminishing returns from further escalation. A nod to Iranian decision making is probably in order, as they have managed to ride the edge of the political and military envelope well these past few weeks.

 

Any more of the same from them is probably unsustainable, however, as the Iranian hand is simply too weak.

 

The plan must be something like that everyone jumps overboard before impact.

 

They were expendable.

Edited July 20, 2019 by Nobu

[wendist]

Oh, its ours now, inevitably.

 

You are right though, the only British thing about it is that its got 'London' on the Stern. I gather there isnt even any Brits on it, although no word on the nationality. Not that it changes anything of course.

 

Lots of retired naval officers are coming up on BBC and Sky saying this would never have happened if both the major parties hadnt neglected the Royal Navy for the past 2 decades. Oh the hilarity...

Nationality: India, Russia, Philippines and Latvia. No Swedes of course, we don't take those kind of jobs anymore I guess.

[Stuart Galbraith]

Well there we are then, lets hand the problem over to India and Russia. Next.

 

I know, its not that simple. We cannot just allow our ships to be hoovered up this way.

 

What would I do? Well I wouldnt do anything. Id just build our capability up on the region, and start making vague noises about a blockade. Which I suspect is where Trump is heading next anyway.

[Stuart Galbraith]

Iran released footage of the capture of the British ship.

https://news.sky.com/story/serious-consequences-if-iran-doesnt-release-oil-tanker-uk-warns-11767134

[JasonJ]

Where did my post of pictures go? Was it actually deleted? The one that also asked how many pictures are there of the ROK Navy in the South China Sea? And said "no shame having defense partners, or rather its smart."

 

Did you delete it, for real?

Edited July 20, 2019 by JasonJ

[Chris Werb]

Where did my post of pictures go? Was it actually deleted? The one that also asked how many pictures are there of the ROK Navy in the South China Sea? And said "no shame having defense partners, or rather its smart."

 

Did you delete it, for real?

 

I saw that this morning and kept looking for it again and again to respond to it (as it could have been on one of four different threads), scratching my head. Some nice pics in there of carriers or amphibs with Japanese allies like RoK and Australia. I honestly didn't delete it - at least not intentionally! (when you go to delete, it comes up with a message "Are you sure you want to delete this post?", so it's almost impossible to do accidentally. Also, on the rare occasions I delete anything, I always explain why.

[JasonJ]

Ok...

Thanks for the reply, I guess.

[Chris Werb]

Ok...

Thanks for the reply, I guess.

 

"I guess"? I have never deleted anyone's post simply because I disagreed with it and I didn't even disagree with that one. I really don't know why it went away. I can't see how it could have happened accidentally, but if that did happen, I apologise. it was certainly not my intention.

[JasonJ]

 

Ok...

Thanks for the reply, I guess.

 

"I guess"? I have never deleted anyone's post simply because I disagreed with it and I didn't even disagree with that one. I really don't know why it went away. I can't see how it could have happened accidentally, but if that did happen, I apologise. it was certainly not my intention.

 

 

Well yeah, "I guess". It still leaves me wondering and short on confidence.

 

Maybe it was the same bug that ate all of of Stuart's posts what, 3 years ago?

 

But here is a recreation of the post. The pictures are serving to show JMSDF going beyond just strict defense of home islands and engaging with defense partners. I would argue that having many defense partners is even more critical than the size of defense budget because those defense countries still dictate on the basic level as to who is welcomed and who is not into their sovereign territory and would suggest some level of diplomatic common ground.

 

Anyway, to the post.

 

In the Indian Ocean

 

At Singapore

 

In the South China Sea

 

Also in the South China Sea (JMSDF and RCN)

 

In Alaska

 

At Brunei

 

At the Philippines

 

In Australia

 

How many pictures of the ROK Navy can you find in the South China Sea? And yet you think while Japan presence in Euope is weak but then you think the ROK Army is going to send how you termed it as "bodies" to Poland and the Baltic countries even though some ROK BMs use Russian technology?

 

No shame in having defense partners. Or rather, it is smart.

 

 

 

That post came just before this post: http://www.tank-net.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=44050&p=1438708

Both posts go together because the linked post in the line above is linked to the 1% of the current GDP. That linked post is also connected to the whole politicized-history dispute currently going on between ROK and Japan that has transitioned to a trade war. The acceptance of that fake narration history in top level diplomatic would make Japan appear as a wacko rogue nation had it pursued offensive weapons 10 years ago. That fake history literal does have an impact on the security of Japan because of how other international countries accept that fake history. Make JS Akagi 10 years ago? That Japan that "has never fully looked at its history and has never properly apologized". They can't even have the Japanese prime minster visit Yasukuni Shrine without cause so much diplomatic consequences. It is so crucial that Japan gets the cooperation from other countries, even countries as small as Brunei. Because with that cooperation comes with an invisible message, "Japan, yes its ok to be strong". Japan has no natural resources. Japan is only as strong as other countries allow it. South Korea is a hindrance to it. And that gives CCP China a better chance. So yes indeed, unless South Korea quits using history for geopolitical purposes, to hell with their economy for all I care. They are in the way and are not contributing at all to the security situation in the South China Sea, or Taiwan, and to your response to my first post of about the post disappearance, none of those pictures have an ROK ship in it either.

Edited July 21, 2019 by JasonJ

[JasonJ]

The seized British oil tank has a total crew of 23. 18 of them are Indian. 1 from the Philippines. Both those countries urged Iran to release the crew.

The governments of India and the Philippines are urging Iran to release their crew members that were on board a British oil tanker seized by Iran on Friday.

 

A spokesperson from India's external affairs ministry on Saturday said 18 Indian crew members were on board, and that officials are in touch with the Iranian government to secure the crew's quick release and safe return home.

 

The Philippines' foreign ministry also released a statement that said officials will ask Iran, through its ambassador in Tehran, to confirm the safety of and promptly release the one Filipino crew member.

 

The foreign ministry said there were a total of 23 crew members, including 3 Russians and one Latvian, and that it has no information about their conditions.

https://www3.nhk.or.jp/nhkworld/en/news/20190720_28/ Edited July 21, 2019 by JasonJ

[Adam_S]

Surely this is the time for the Little Crappy Ships to shine and have some of them escorting tankers through the Gulf to the open sea.

[Nobu]

The Navy would probably settle for them reaching the gulf in battleworthy condition. Agree with the rest, that this mission is what the $30 billion spent on them was for.

[Burncycle360]

Predators and hellfire would do fine, they were in international waters.

Iran's just mad about Gibraltar.

[Stuart Galbraith]

They should probably leave that to the Spanish.