UK Military 'Irrelevant' in Iran Confrontation

#2
Or paper writes rubbish to raise blood pressure of it's readership and sell papers
 
#4
Yeah well, maybe it is time to douse our fires, fold our tents and piss off back to our damp little island off the Eurine mainland.
 
G

goatrutar

Guest
#6
Maybe the lack of British involvment in this situation is a blessing in disguise? Britain and France squabbling over who's Americas best mate is a bit sad though.
 
#7
I fail to see what relevance this has to the matter. No doubt USN often likes to show off its toys to other navies, not just the RN. They might also be interested in selling stuff to us.

You think?


http://www.navynews.co.uk/archive/news/item/3501

"…Britain’s newest nuclear submarine HMS Astute has been put through her toughest test yet – a game of cat-and-mouse with an American counterpart.
The Faslane-based hunter-killer sparred with the USS New Mexico in the Bahamas in a series of war games witnessed by the heads of the Royal and American Navies.…"


Seems the Yanks are doing a aweful lot of the very highest level schmoozing with the 'irrelevant' UK.
 
#8
While it would be unflattering, it would in fact be great if the Yanks considered us so irrelevant to any Iran conflict that they didn't let us play. Too many of our blokes have died for the US over the last ten years.
 
#9
Maybe the lack of British involvment in this situation is a blessing in disguise? Britain and France squabbling over who's Americas best mate is a bit sad though.


Or maybe, just maybe, the real back story is something like…

Yo, Uncle Sam, can we come too when you thumb your nose at the Iranians?

Probably best you guys don't, this might all go a bit kinetic and we need complete political freedom of action if it does.

Oh go on.

Oh alright then.


But that wouldn't put much fuel in a Telegraph journos Outrage Bus®
 

FORMER_FYRDMAN

LE
Book Reviewer
#11
More likely it's another sad bleat by the morons in Navy Blue who spaffed the budget on the strategic breakthrough that is the aircraftless aircraft carrier. They probably think they're being really clever with their 'info op', except that nobody's stupid enough to believe that the USA's political preference is to take on Iran single-handed rather than to be seen as part of a wider coalition with some sort of international mandate, so it's very unlikely that the RN had to beg for anything more than time to charge their iPod's.

First MOD_RSS tells us the Argyll's like a Deathstar only harder:

Ministry of Defence | Defence News | Military Operations | HMS Argyll deploys to Middle East after refit

and then they whine that the Yanks don't rate them. How do these clowns reach the rank? No wonder defence is in such a state.
 
#13
There's a huge difference between tagging on to a passing USN TG for some war games and exercises conducted with the respective CNO's attending.


The fact is the RN had to use the USN's AUTEC range because it lacks any such ranges of its own.

That would be the AUTEC range set up as part of a joint US/UK agreement in 1963 and we have a joint share in?
 
#14
We don't have a 'joint share', we have access rights. It is a USN facility with minimal UK involvement. If the US decided to close it and just use its Pacific ranges the RN would be stuck.

Atlantic Undersea Test and Evaluation Center - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And in any event the agreement dates back to 1963, when the UK packed somewhat more clout than it does now.

Frankly, Admirals visiting vessels of other nations means very little. Major USN exercises such as RIMPAC and Malabar involve numerous nations but little or no UK involvement.
 
#15
We don't have a 'joint share', we have access rights. It is a USN facility with minimal UK involvement. If the US decided to close it and just use its Pacific ranges the RN would be stuck.

Atlantic Undersea Test and Evaluation Center - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And in any event the agreement dates back to 1963, when the UK packed somewhat more clout than it does now

Frankly, Admirals visiting vessels of other nations means very little. Major USN exercises such as RIMPAC and Malabar involve numerous nations but little or no UK involvement..

Well, as part of your frantic fantasy that we are in now some way of utter irrelvance to the Yanks, I suppose you'll be saying they'll just shut down Menwith Hill and all the other shared facilities thay have with us?

The relationship between the UK armed forces and the US ones IS different than with the rest of the world despite the febrile rantings of the jouros.


Frankly, anyone who can't tell the difference between Admiral level meetings/visits and CNO level meetings/visits needs to have a quick chat with hiumself.
 
#16
Well, as part of your frantic fantasy that we are in now some way of utter irrelvance to the Yanks, I suppose you'll be saying they'll just shut down Menwith Hill and all the other shared facilities thay have with us?

The relationship between the UK armed forces and the US ones IS different than with the rest of the world despite the febrile rantings of the jouros.
Menwith Hill is where it is for geographical and historical reasons, I don't suppose the US will be looking to base any new units or establishments in the UK. In fact their most recent European basing decisions have been in Romania, Bulgaria and Spain for BMD purposes. I am not saying that the UK is utterly irrelevant, just that its relevance to US grand strategy is steadily diminishing and nowadays is not nearly as important as, say, Japan or India, notwithstanding historical hangovers in various fields. The contribution we can make to any US operation is also becoming less and less, to the extent that having us there probably creates more C2 problems for the US than the actual firepower provided merits.

Maybe you missed Obama's announcement that the US was reorienting towards the Pacific basin? Perhaps you could explain how the UK is a major player in that part of the world?
 
#17
Menwith Hill is where it is for geographical and historical reasons, I don't suppose the US will be looking to base any new units or establishments in the UK. In fact their most recent European basing decisions have been in Romania, Bulgaria and Spain for BMD purposes. I am not saying that the UK is utterly irrelevant, just that its relevance to US grand strategy is steadily diminishing and nowadays is not nearly as important as, say, Japan or India, notwithstanding historical hangovers in various fields. The contribution we can make to any US operation is also becoming less and less, to the extent that having us there probably creates more C2 problems for the US than the actual firepower provided merits.

Maybe you missed Obama's announcement that the US was reorienting towards the Pacific basin? Perhaps you could explain how the UK is a major player in that part of the world?


Oh well, you must be right, we're just irrelevant nobodies that the US is flipping off, must be true, read about it in the Telegraph.=|
 
#18
No, no, YOU'RE right, we're a massive great superpower and everybody fears, respects and admires us. We're not at all an irrelevant, bankrupt little island half a planet away from the main forum for global affairs in the 21st century.
 

FORMER_FYRDMAN

LE
Book Reviewer
#20
No, no, YOU'RE right, we're a massive great superpower and everybody fears, respects and admires us. We're not at all an irrelevant, bankrupt little island half a planet away from the main forum for global affairs in the 21st century.
For a variety of reasons, not least strategic location, population and cultural heritage, the main forum will remain Europe, the Middle East and Africa, just as it has always been for most of recorded history, regardless of the relative size and power of China.
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top