UK sends it's mightiest ship to take on Iran in the Gulf

page: 2
15
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 6 2012 @ 04:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Vitchilo
 


Unlikely to stop torpedo's either

What about Directed Energy Weapons? I bet it can't stop them either.

Yay for a $1B vessel that still has quite a few vulnerabilities.
Such arrogance.




posted on Jan, 6 2012 @ 04:37 PM
link   
reply to post by thoughtsfull
 


I find it difficult to see a way out of this conflict without getting the leaders to listen to the people. No ome wants a war, not the Iranian citizens nor the US or UK citizens. The only people who do want war is the leaders and the banks. Unless these leaders have a change of heart i cannot see us avoiding war.

Its all about people wanting to dominate the world, plain and simple, such a bad mentality. I just want to live my life in peace and watch my family grow up.


It wont be long now, the destroyer leaves on Wednesday, any idea how long it will take to arrive?
I really hope they are not going to provoke a fight.



posted on Jan, 6 2012 @ 04:46 PM
link   
reply to post by TheMindWar
 


Well, some say this deployment has been on the books for a while, but then again they would say that wouldn't they!

As for the trip, I guess if this really was a simply a replacement for the existing frigate then Daring would be sticking with the time scale which I would have thought would include some lay overs on the way.

So am guessing here that if she takes a direct route and gets their quickly then there is more to this than meets the eye!

But I can't help but agree that there is more to this and that we are verging on a serious bout of bumping heads, my guess is that it would be to subvert/distract from any economic collapse!



posted on Jan, 6 2012 @ 04:48 PM
link   
reply to post by TBR47
 



Must be absolutely true because i read it in the Daily Mail


I'll be sharing that vid



posted on Jan, 6 2012 @ 05:22 PM
link   
Britain has one of the most experienced and well trained Naval forces in the world, they are not sending a minesweeper vessel because it is going to be passing through international waters. It would be suicidal for a mine to be placed there, civilian casualties would have a drastic effect on the ones responsible. HMS Daring is a smart move as it is capable of holding the strait on it's own and protecting any civilian interests in the process.



posted on Jan, 6 2012 @ 06:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Vitchilo
reply to post by airforce47
 


I know all about mines sweepers... but thing is, mines historically have a pretty good hit rate.

It only takes one place mine and kabooooooooom.
edit on 6-1-2012 by Vitchilo because: (no reason given)


I know about mine sweepers too i served on the USS Enhance MSO 437 during operation Endsweep in the 1970s. I was a mine sweep electrician and ran the sweep equipment.

I also know the US has mines that Iran can only dream of.
they could mine the area but the US has mines that only go off under ships that the mines computer is programed for like EVERY iranian war ship.
We just program the mines and lay them in every one of Irans harbors.
We already have the sound signatures of all the main Iranian war ships


Early on the morning of 8 May 1972, aircraft carrier Coral Sea (CVA 43) launched three Marine A-6 Intruders and six Navy A-7 Corsair attack planes toward the coast of North Vietnam. Shortly afterward, the naval aircraft laid strings of thirty-six 1,000-pound Mark 52 mines in the water approaches to Haiphong,
It took 2 minutes to close Haiphong harbor.and for the rest of the year of 1972 the harbor was closed.

www.history.navy.mil...

The US also has the CAPTOR mine/torpedo system.
en.wikipedia.org...
These can be used against the Iranians to and also they can be programed for just Iranian warships.
the CAPTOR works on surface ships also if programed.

These could be laid at each end of the Strait of Hormuz after the Iranian entered the strait to trap them in a fish bowl.

Yes IRAN can use mines but they could also regret it for a long time because the US can use mines better.

edit on 6-1-2012 by ANNED because: (no reason given)
edit on 6-1-2012 by ANNED because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 6 2012 @ 06:20 PM
link   
reply to post by THE_PROFESSIONAL
 


I would hardly say the Navy was "destroyed" .

We lost Sheffield and the Antelope (an auxiliary ship)

Won the war and steamed home - built new ships.

Very off topic but a fun fact ......

As for the Sheffield - little known fact - when she was being built she broke her back on the slipway - resolution - chop the back end off another same type ship being built in an adjacent slipway and weld it on her tail. That ship was being built for Argentina.



posted on Jan, 6 2012 @ 06:28 PM
link   
reply to post by ANNED
 




I know about mine sweepers too i served on the USS Enhance MSO 437 during operation Endsweep in the 1970s. I was a mine sweep electrician and ran the sweep equipment.

Pretty neat.



Yes IRAN can use mines but they could also regret it for a long time because the US can use mines better.

Yeah but it's not about who's better at using mines. It's about if the US is able to defuse the mine threat...

If Russia/China supplied Iran with high tech mines, it could be a problem. I doubt China has given high tech mines to Iran since China needs that oil.



posted on Jan, 6 2012 @ 07:55 PM
link   
IMO this is the government backing their recent words with action..

I hope that the situation just remains at the present handbags DEFCON



posted on Jan, 6 2012 @ 08:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Sovaka
 


people fail to realize where ever that ship travels it has HMS Astute with it.also a 1.3bn nuclear sub



posted on Jan, 7 2012 @ 04:06 AM
link   
reply to post by Silk
 


Don't forget to add Coventry, ardent, sir galahad and Atlantic conveyor to the list mate. We were very lucky that the argies didn't sort their bombs out or we would have lost.....

www.naval-history.net...



posted on Jan, 7 2012 @ 04:13 AM
link   
reply to post by THE_PROFESSIONAL
 


I'm pretty sure that would create more problems than it would solve...



posted on Jan, 7 2012 @ 04:15 AM
link   
reply to post by scotsdavy1
 


It's okay, he has quite the reputation of civilian armchair Admiral.



posted on Jan, 7 2012 @ 04:19 AM
link   
Is Iran really a threat to the UK? I mean if Iranian ships were heading over to the British waters, everyone would be demanding we blow them out of the sea, yet we think it's cool to just go and intimidate another country with our Navy and should our Navy come under any attack, we will be demanding the destruction of Iran.



posted on Jan, 7 2012 @ 04:21 AM
link   
reply to post by apodictic
 


So you are the all great on this subject I take it? Hiding behind a pc as per usual? You make me laugh at your ignorance on the subject...
edit on 7-1-2012 by scotsdavy1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 7 2012 @ 04:29 AM
link   
Wow, whats with all this people up in here wishing the crew of daring to get hit by a mine? I don't agree with the situation personally but I wouldn't want to wish death upon the servicemen and women of the royal navy, and I'm not even British!



posted on Jan, 7 2012 @ 04:32 AM
link   
reply to post by scotsdavy1
 


Uh? I was actually agreeing with you with your stance on "The professional" (lol)

And yes, being a Marine I'm aware of what my military is capable of, I suppose you can say I'm learned on the subject.

The professional has delusions of Iran being an all powerful nation, being able to single-handedly fight a war against three nations with their 50 year old war ships and inexperienced ground combat forces, while on a 7 billion dollar military budget. For reference, BRAZIL even has a 28 billion dollar military budget. The US is close to 700 billion. For some reason I think he may be disappointed if a war kicks off.
edit on 7-1-2012 by apodictic because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 7 2012 @ 04:43 AM
link   
HMS Daring is the most advanced warship in the world, if we have sent that then I reckon things are going to get real ugly, real soon.


I just hope the only casualties are military, on both sides.
edit on 7/1/12 by woogleuk because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 7 2012 @ 04:44 AM
link   
I'm an ex army man myself and father and brother were in the RAF so I also know what I am talking about. I thought you were laughing at my comments and for that mistake I apologise and I don't do that very often but am first to hold my hands if wrong.



posted on Jan, 7 2012 @ 04:50 AM
link   
reply to post by woodwardjnr
 


The Royal Navy has been in region for centuries, aiding one of it's allies (or puppets if you prefer) in the region and is doing the same now! (e.g 1622 we aided the Persians in capturing Hormuz Island to give them control over the area and by default made our trade routes easier)

So to relate it to Iran it would not be that they would be coming to patrol British waters but would be coming to patrol French waters in the Channel (and had done for centuries) to ensure we did not block the straights of Dover (21 miles) to their trade (compares to the straight of Hormuz (34 miles))

Not saying that it is right, but nations look out for their own interests, and it is in the interests of many that those trade routes remain open. The negative aspect is that those areas (straights of Gibraltar, Dover, Hormuz) are bottle necks that cause friction and get used as excuses to wage war.





new topics
top topics
 
15
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join