• ARRSE have partnered with Armadillo Merino to bring you an ARRSE exclusive, generous discount offer on their full price range.
    To keep you warm with the best of Merino gear, visit www.armadillomerino.co.uk and use the code: NEWARRSE40 at the checkout to get 40% off!
    This superb deal has been generously offered to us by Armadillo Merino and is valid until midnight on the the 28th of February.

Royal Navy too weak for big role in N Korea blockade

#1
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/mai...WAVCBQYIV0?xml=/news/2006/10/16/wnkorea16.xml

Plans to impose a blockade of North Korea to prevent the regime acquiring nuclear weapons were thrown in disarray last night.

China said it would oppose attempts to inspect suspect vessels and Royal Navy commanders said Britain was unable to make a significant military commitment to the proposed United Nations naval task force.

The United States is leading attempts to put together a force that would prevent suspect cargoes from entering the Marxist dictatorship and stop North Korea exporting weapons of mass destruction technology to rogue regimes such as Iran and terrorist groups.

Good...its no business of ours anyway.

What are the chances of some action on the high seas though?

I can imagine the N Koreans being ready and willing to repel all boarders.
 
#2
This is the Navy fishing for more funds in the new 'fund the Army properly' debate or certainly to stop Brown axing a couple of their 'type 45 floating diplomatic cocktail party venues'.

The Blockcade of NK will not happen as China is against it (senior cadres in Beijing making serious cash off NK skullduggary). At the worse NK ships will hug PRC coastal waters until notified that no 'UN' ships are present.
 
#3
armchair_jihad said:
This is the Navy fishing for more funds in the new 'fund the Army properly' debate or certainly to stop Brown axing a couple of their 'type 45 floating diplomatic cocktail party venues'.

The Blockcade of NK will not happen as China is against it (senior cadres in Beijing making serious cash off NK skullduggary). At the worse NK ships will hug PRC coastal waters until notified that no 'UN' ships are present.
AJ, from where I am the best country to sort out NK is China...in its own specail way at a time of it choosing....you agree (personally) and does view site with your understanding of how China operates?

p.s. what is the betting that the MoD Firewall get ARRSE before the PRC firewall is upgraded and ARRSE gets added to the great-firewall :twisted:
 
#4
Jailorinummqasr said:
AJ, from where I am the best country to sort out NK is China...in its own specail way at a time of it choosing....you agree (personally) and does view site with your understanding of how China operates?:
I was with a bunch of midranking PLA types yesterday (they had organised a banquet in honor of the bravery of our lads in Stan), they believe that NK is seriously out of line and needs a shoeing. They said that China is planning to remove the mutual defense clause in their various treaties. After that is done literally anything can happen in NK, including a PRC inspired NK Army coup.

Jailorinummqasr said:
p.s. what is the betting that the MoD Firewall get ARRSE before the PRC firewall is upgraded and ARRSE gets added to the great-firewall :twisted:
ARRSE in the PRC should be safe enough given the amount of PLA anaylists who log on (the NAAFI being a favorite so I am told).

The MOD press officers have lost their battle with the truth so badly that any attempt to close ARRSE would probably lead to all of the 'useless mouths' at the MOD press office being cleansed as 'not fit for purpose'.

Oh the joy of it.
 
#5
Interesting points. NK having a nuclear capability is a global issue but the threat actually is a regional one based upon there weaponry. Any blockade should be policed by the Regional Powers, China/Russia/USA/Japan. We should stay well out of the way, the last 1SL told Bliar that te Navy could not meet its standing commitments and now Blair et al need to understand this is exactly what he was refering to. We are not a global policeman of the High Seas thanks to the cuts that this regime an the previous gubment inflicted upon all three services.

Jail,

Rrather than pleading for more useless and very expensive toys how about sorting out more strat airlift (C17 adn VC10/Tristar replacements) don't tell me FLA and FSTA will sort it as A400M will be prop driven and incapbale at cruising at the speed the C17 does meaning that it has to fly out of international airlanes (lower altitude) which affects the fuel consumption due to denser air and hence shorter range.
 
#6
Defence experts predicted that the most the Royal Navy could contribute was a single frigate, a Royal Fleet auxiliary support vessel and a Trafalgar class hunter killer submarine.
But senior navy officers expressed deep concern about their ability to defend their ships against a hostile missile or fighter threat after a decision was enforced six months ago to scrap the Sea Harrier fighter.
from here

Seems that 'senior navy officers' now believe thta they are either deploying a carrier with all the support or going ot be basing Harrier of a Frigate or an RFA. Wonder if the press are back in the habit of making very junior officers into senior leaders once again (a la Army Capt = Senior officer) - could this be a Naval Lt spouting off?
 
#7
I can only assume that this is some sort of push for more funds by the RN. Frankl;y, the US 7th Fleet, JMSDF and RoK Navy between them are more than sufficient to blokade NK. I doubt anyone outside the UK is even thinking about an RN contribution.
 
#9
Don't we as a security council member have to provide some sort of commitment?
If the governments (past and present) have seen fit to decimate our armed forces to todays levels, shouldn't we seriously considering giving up our place at the table. We might have the teeth to still give a nip but not the bite we once had.
 
#10
AndyPipkin said:
I can only assume that this is some sort of push for more funds by the RN.
And that’s a bad thing how? All three services are in dire need of cash, and the treasury can more than afford to pay out to all three. The dear Chancellor is after all getting more than a £1 Billion a day in taxes alone.

The more pressure that is put on, especially from multiple angles, the better chances of every service getting what it needs.
 
#12
DodgerDog said:
Jail,Rrather than pleading for more useless and very expensive toys how about sorting out more strat airlift (C17 adn VC10/Tristar replacements) don't tell me FLA and FSTA will sort it as A400M will be prop driven and incapbale at cruising at the speed the C17 does meaning that it has to fly out of international airlanes (lower altitude) which affects the fuel consumption due to denser air and hence shorter range.
The question was posted on another thread......the Strat lift is sorted in the sense that there is a GDP37Bn contract on the table for a commercial solution, [737 or Airbus models providing AAR, People and Freight lift]. Yes I have loads of reservations with this but what can I do.

As for the AM400 I have seen the picture but that is about all I know.....As for my comments about Eurofighter...we have retired the Canberra (broken) and Jaguars. This leaves the Harrier (to be replaced by JSF when available) and the Tornado....a bomber converted to fighter, converted to CAS role....yes they are expensive, but in reality we will be using them for the next 50 years. So when our Grandchildren are serving they will be supported by an Aircaft designed with the Cold War in mind.

It comes back to the CGS's comments about an Army fit for role in 5, 10 and 20 years. Both the RAF and RN have the same issue.......
 
#13
Drago_Drake said:
AndyPipkin said:
I can only assume that this is some sort of push for more funds by the RN.
And that’s a bad thing how? All three services are in dire need of cash, and the treasury can more than afford to pay out to all three. The dear Chancellor is after all getting more than a £1 Billion a day in taxes alone.

The more pressure that is put on, especially from multiple angles, the better chances of every service getting what it needs.
All the money in china (excuse pun) wont cure the problem, the RN are critically short on manpower IIRC.... Tall Sea Cadets in RN cap tallys made up the numbers for the IFOS and Trafalgar 200 celebrations cos there were not enough matelots to go around, funding is only a part of the problem, plenty of warships sat there in pompey and guz- lacking in diesel and men/women.

Rincewind
 

BuggerAll

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
#15
I hope that we don't have enough troops to get involved in any military invasion of North Korea either. Whilst I have no doubt that Americal muscle would win in the end I don't think that invading the DPRK would be the 'pushover' that Iraq was. These b'stards are tough and committed.
 
#16
sknn said:
I hope that we don't have enough troops to get involved in any military invasion of North Korea either. Whilst I have no doubt that Americal muscle would win in the end I don't think that invading the DPRK would be the 'pushover' that Iraq was. These b'stards are tough and committed.
The real danger is what the PRC will do, not DPRK, in such a situation. Not sure they'd want US troops on a land border. Certainly thwey didn't in 1950!
 
#17
Carcass said:
Northern_Biff said:
shouldn't we seriously considering giving up our place at the table. We might have the teeth to still give a nip but not the bite we once had.
Trident says otherwise.
Granted but its hardly been the deterrent it was designed for has it. I meant more in terms of conventional means....not the last option. (..as you well know)
 
#18
AndyPipkin said:
The real danger is what the PRC will do, not DPRK, in such a situation. Not sure they'd want US troops on a land border. Certainly thwey didn't in 1950!
apparently the PRC have just initiated full searches on everything crossing the border (apart from those trucks with the right number plates of course :wink: )
 
#19
Can't see China fighting the DPRK's battles for them; China's twin priorities at the moment are making as much money as possible and preparing for the Olympics next year.
Of course, if it did come to all-out war in Korea - and short of Kim lobbing a nuke at the South I can't see it happening - the NK army would be a formidible opponent. They are tough, well trained and brainwashed practically from birth. They are also the fourth-largest army in the world.
On the plus side, I've heard they have very little in the way of an airforce. So the Septics could carpet bomb them with impunity.
I really don't see any military action being taken against NK any time soon; too expensive in lives and, far more importantly, money. And I don't think Kim or his generals are going to risk their own lavish lifestyles by provoking the rest of the world beyond the point of no return.
But I've been wrong before...
 
#20
I strongly doubt that USA would impose a real blockade. It is an act of a war and N.Koreans have anti-ship missiles.

What our American friends would do in the case of the attack or/and (God forbid) sinking of UN Navy vessel?

A retaliation could cause a real war with unpredictable consequesnces.

So these rants about blockade is rather a strom in a glass.
 

Latest Threads