Any Views On Mike Critchley's letter?

Discussion in 'Current Affairs' started by F169, Apr 3, 2007.

Welcome to the Navy Net aka Rum Ration

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial RN website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. To the Telegraph. I fully agree with his line on 'Information Superiority'.

    Navy needs to get its laid-up patrol vessels into the Gulf

    Sir - Having witnessed one of the most embarrassing incidents for the Royal Navy at sea for many years, with the Government now impotent to secure the release of our Servicemen in Iran, I suggest that it is madness to have laid up at Portsmouth three vessels (Brecon, Dulverton and Cottesmore) that were converted at great cost as patrol vessels to intercept suspect shipping.

    We deployed one of our remaining frigates in the fleet, armed with the latest sensors and weapons (Goalkeeper, Harpoon, Seawolf and torpedo tubes) to protect oil flowing from Iraq, but were humiliated by small craft with the simplest small arms.

    Our multi-million-pound vessel was unable to join the action and defend our men for lack of water under her keel, whereas something smaller would have been appropriate. Once again, the Treasury is not giving our Servicemen the kit to do the job asked of them.

    These three vessels at Portsmouth should be returned to service as soon as possible for deployment to the Gulf or even the Straits of Dover - wherever the terrorist threat exists.

    After the Falklands war 25 years ago, we have learnt once again that the Ministry of Defence does not have the "information superiority" it is so keen to talk about.

    Get the right ships off the sales list and back defending our interests at home and abroad. The cost is minimal.

    Lt-Cdr Mike Critchley RN Rtd, Warship World magazine, Liskeard,
     
  2. sounds to me like the round peg in the round hole - except with the British (sorry to say this but thats how it looks from here) bound and determined to reduce its Navy to a set of tugs, it will probably never happen.
     
  3. Yes. Hear! Hear!

    2BM
     
  4. Whistles !!!!!!
     
  5. Re call that man back to duty.
     
  6. Somebody want to reactivate his comission! Well said. Elect him.
     
  7. They won't listen! The money's already committed elsewhere and the income from any ship sales will have been factored into the Budget!

    The short road of Appeasement is the long road to War. The government have chosen short-term savings from cutting defence expenditure in the delusionary hope that there will be no future major wars involving the UK. They may have a kind of peace now, they will get war later, and any savings will be more than wiped out by the investment needed just for Britain to survive. Our weakness is watched by our enemies who are drawing conclusions that our government would prefer to pretend are not being reached.
     
  8. Fully agree with Mike Critchley

    If you want to do Gunboat diplomacy send a gunboat not a high tech
    state of the art all singing all dancing warship .
     
  9. Some P2000's would be a better bet, it's not as if we're short of them or don't already use them for the job.
     
  10. The Hunts are hardly quick either, 15kts with a following wind and I'd imagine the same problems with water temp would limit that too.
     
  11. Cornwall was probably not the best tool in the box for this particular mission, but this had less to do with ship type and more to do with poor tactics than anyone is admitting. Cornwall had a Lynx that should have been the deciding factor in this incident. Where was it? Why was Cornwall 10nm away? [the equivalent of her being in Plymouth Sound and the boats at the Eddystone Light]. It would be interesting to know what heading the ship that was being searched was on, weather conditions and particularly wind direction. A lot of questions and maybe they will be answered in the sweet bye and bye.

    The Iranians aren't dumb and there is more to this than meets the eye. If cargo was being crane-transferred from the ship to a lighter warped alongside then I am assuming that the RN boats could only board from the other side. If this put them on the blind-side to boats coming out of Iran at high-speed then it is not surprising that they were caught. It strikes me as odd that a ship bringing cars into Iraq should drop it's hook so close to Iran and that the Iranians then knew precisely when to strike and had apparently factored out the Lynx. Strange....just thinking aloud.

    RM
     
  12. silverfox

    silverfox War Hero Moderator Book Reviewer

    The area we need to concentrate on is the actual contact area. Having an MCMV about won't make a difference due to speed and limited firepower. We need to make sure that we have the fire power, and more importantly, the numbers up front where it matters.

    Instead of doing a boarding with 2 boats, both of whom are empty whilst the inspection team are on the target, lets do it with 4 boats, or 5. The other boats are the ones setting up a security perimeter around the inspected vessel, give them crew served weapons and the ROE to use them. We need the numbers on the ground.

    As for attack helicopters - well without being disrespectful to my aviation buddies - I have witnessed .50 cal firings against a stationary target and would take my chances in a highly manouverable 40kt go fast any day...............do you not notice that in Bond movies for example, he's the one outwitting the bird in the chopper, rather than flying it himself....

    Park an LSL at anchor up in the business end and she can provide support for months on end - this was how perimeter security was established and maintained during T200 by the way - and the FF can go and do other things...
     

  13. An LSL with ORC's and RHIB's would be probably the best option, use the ORC's for force protection, fast, armoured and lots of firepower. And as you say, the ROE's need a severe looking at, they are barking and ensure the opposition always retain the innitiative throughout the contact.
     
  14. Whilst I agree in principle with Mike Critchley as we move forward into different types of warfare away from conventional wars with huge superpowers lobbing 4.5 shells over the horizon at each other we should equip our forces with craft fit for purpose. Design and build excellent FAST patrol boats with relevant armourment to deal with this type of threat and to be able to deal with terrorist threats as well.
    What is the point of having huge expensive weapon platforms if they are not capable of doing this job.

    Agree with the sentiment - would just point out that reason 4.5" was put back onto ships post Falklands was for the purpose of Fire Support ashore. As it is foreseen that we will be operating in the littoral for some considerable time to come, a 4.5 (or bigger) is seen as a good thing...
     
  15. I put this post on another forum on 30 march:

    "Perhaps there is a case for the the MoD procuring a number of small FACs (HMS' Cutlass, Scimiter, Sabre and Tenacity type vessels spring to mind) to provide force protection to the boarding parties in these waters. Cornwall appears to have been constrained from intervening by shallow water (I read somewhere) but FACs may have been able to station themselves more closely to the problem area and react quickly enough to interspose themselves between the Iranaians and the Boarding party RIBs.

    Corwall etc would still provide the C3 but the FACs would provide local deterrence and defence.

    Such FAC type vessels may also have utility as force protection assets in helping prevent terrorist attacks of the sort that hit the USS Cole several years ago"

    Have not heard anything that changes my mind.
     
  16. silverfox

    silverfox War Hero Moderator Book Reviewer

    http://usmilitary.about.com/cs/weapons/a/marinecraft.htm

    This is the sort of bad boy we need there is also a more heavily armed escort version but I couldn't find any pics. An LSL could look after a dozen or so of these plus crews.

    We don't need to over cook this thing and create a new capability complete with new types of caft, training burdens etc etc - we just need to re-equip what we already have.

    Can we drive RHIBs? - yes
    Can we fit bigger guns? - find out - but easy to buy if we can't
    Do we have bigger guns? - yes
    Do we have people who are trained to fire bigger guns? - yes, in the form of Royal.

    Get me CinC's phone number.....
     
  17. The Royals already have these, twin GPMG's at the pointy end and a couple of .50's

    [​IMG]
     

  18. Yes these are the ones we need where are they then ? why are they not used in this instance?
     
  19.  
  20. Just wish we had an LSL left to deploy!
     

Share This Page