Yemen’s Houthi group has claimed responsibility for a series of attacks targeting vessels linked to the United States, the United Kingdom, and Israel.
Houthi spokesperson, Yahya Sarea, announced that the operation involved several cruise missiles aimed at the Anvil Point, something later refuted by the operators of the ship.
“The third operation targeted the British ship Anvil Point in the Indian Ocean with several cruise missiles accurately and directly,” Sarea stated.
The Point class, including the Anvil Point, comprises six roll-on/roll-off sealift ships originally procured under a Private Finance Initiative (PFI) to support the British armed forces.
These vessels are designed for the strategic transport of military cargo and vehicles, operating as merchant vessels when not required for military service. The Anvil Point and its sister ships were constructed by the German company Flensburger Schiffbau-Gesellschaft and Harland and Wolff in Belfast, with the Anvil Point being the last ship built by the latter.
Despite the Houthi claims, it has been reported that the Anvil Point was seen docked in Duqm, Oman, as of July 1st, 2024. This raises questions about the accuracy of the Houthi statements regarding the timing and location of their attacks. In short, it’s nonsense.
MoD Point-class Sealift Ship MV Anvil Point alongside in Duqm, Oman on 1st of July 2024. pic.twitter.com/gHhCm0P2l3
— Ross (@UKForcesTracker) July 1, 2024
Houthi claims prove to be false as usual…
AW Ship Management has confirmed MV Anvil Point (IMO 9248540) was not involved in an attack whilst on passage through the Indian Ocean.
“The vessel and crew are safe and are currently continuing their scheduled voyage from Duqm,… pic.twitter.com/4E4yxeU9FC
— Navy Lookout (@NavyLookout) July 2, 2024
The Houthi group, aligned with Iran, has been conducting drone and missile strikes in shipping lanes since November last year, citing solidarity with Palestinians in Gaza. These actions have targeted ships in strategic locations such as the Red Sea and Arabian Sea.
In response, the United States and Britain launched a military operation in January, conducting air and missile strikes against Houthi targets in Yemen.
Four of the original six Point-class ships remain under MoD contract, with two having been sold off due to budget cuts. Anvil Point and its sister ships have played a crucial role in supporting military operations since their introduction.
An example of a non-complex warship?
Don’t think so. Not crewed by the RN or RFA either.
Once Labour withdraws the UK from anything beyond Europe’s borders not much point in ships like this going to Oman, either.
I’d expect the RN and Army logistics and training areas there to be dropped.
Your evidence for this assertion about Labour’s intentions is what? Have they stated this? You think they will withdraw from AUKUS, Op Shader and the Falklands? I hadn’t appreciated that… if it is true. Again evidence please, and I don’t mean political hearsay.
👍
Based on just about every piece of rhetoric that was coming out of Healeys mouth for years about anything non NATO specific, about “Pacific Tilts” which militarily are miniscule anyway as that was always primarily about trade.
And Britain trading in the Pacific is good, is it not. GCAP, AUKUS. Healey was always on about EU centric military cooperation. That’s not Japan, and what we are going there is historical and ground breaking.
Until the Red Sea attacks and it all went quiet. What a surprise when it’s seen that actually, the RN might be needed to be seen in the world.
Just to clarify, my primary concern is for our comprehensive intelligence and logistical support footprint beyond Europe which we still posess, which enables us to deploy at range. That includes the Oman installations at Mas Madrakha ( spelling ) Duqm, where the RN and Army have logistics elements, and intelligence sites I won’t detail.
They are not NATO.
If it all remains I will be delighted to be wrong, really.
But Healeys comments over many years do not fill me with confidence.
Meant to add, Shader, I’m not sure, Falklands, sure they’d love to if they could get away with it.
Falklands.
Ascension.
Gibraltar.
Cyprus, several sites.
These places are beyond NATO and give the UK strategic reach, and must not be dropped.
Lets see. Come back to me Wyn in a year or two and tell me I was right, or wrong.
I sincerely hope I’m wrong. If so, why Healeys rhetoric all these years.
So not political hearsay, but what he himself was saying.
Healey will keep his mouth shut and follow the Labour party line, or he will be removed. Starmer has shown himself more than willing to get rid of those who go against the party line.
That’s the thing – this is a very different party to the one of 10 years ago. It’s the cabinet not the minister in the end who must decide on policy. And he’d be bound to say things to please the left. Which is why I’m not interested in the political poses. Starmer, I think, knows it’s a dangerous world. The language has changed from 2.5% when we can afford it to to “2.5% as soon as possible”. That’s quite some shift.
I wonder when the next Comprehensive Spending Review will be (could be about September, when we have the next Budget, I guess, as they are usually linked.).
It will be interesting to see if Defence spending gets an uplift then or if the Labour Govt will keep its powder dry until publication of the next SDSR/IR etc.
Indeed… I’m not defending Labour, by the way, just trying avoid projecting forwarded on the basis of what did or didn’t happen 10 years or more ago… the political rhetoric doesn’t interest me at all… so let’s see. I am interested that the Labour manifesto says that, and I quote, “we will establish a Military Strategic Headquarters during week one of a Labour government”. I’ve no idea what that actually means – any suggestions? Don’t we have one of those already!?
As a generality I believe that labour views the way governance works to be too siloed and not ‘mission oriented’ enough. i.e. too much competition for funds between departments and ministries and insufficient co-ordination of people and skills into purposeful teams. How this thinking apples in defence I’ve no idea, but this Strategic Headquarters concept does hint at a more cross services approach.
I very much suspect a lot of labours defence policies will for the first five years very much be based around its developing industrial strategy. I’m betting on some significant industrial stimulus ( more ships etc).
My guess is that labour will view defence much the same way as any UK government does. I.e. what is in the UKs national interest- security, trade, prosperity, influence? The difference is that events have moved on since Ukraine and Brexit. Labour sees Russia as a more relevant threat than China; and that the trade opportunities of the Indo-Pacific are less realistic and less important than securing our back yard and repairing relationships within Europe. Russia is a direct military and hybrid threat in Europe, whose leaders need our leadership and support, and are a major destabilising influence in Africa; driving immigration and limiting the political and economic progress of African nations – and hence our trade opportunities. I’ve no doubt that’s a judgement we will be debating with our partners in NATO.
So rather than linking defence strategy only to industrial strategy I think any UK government would think in terms such as ‘ what do we need to do to stabilise and defend Europe while effecting the progress of stable western democracy in Nigeria/ Kenya/ Mozambique etc.
“we will establish a Military Strategic Headquarters during week one of a Labour government” 😳
In the mid 90s one of those was formed, and it is known as PJHQ.
Several years ago, it expanded to become Joint Forces Command, and is now known as Strategic Command, of which PJHQ remains a part.
God help us if Labour think this has not existed yet or needs creating. 🙄
There are others, from Main Building to the single service HQs, but StratCom is the main one.
The Tories are also creating a strategic headquarters (see the publication Defending Britain). Obviously it doesn’t already exist as either party sees it. PJHQ has limitations in scope and it could be they intend to expand it to better coordinate MDOs. Alternatively as both major parties have promised this, it may be something MOD wants to do anyway and they are taking credit.
As either party sees it, that’s the thing.
Not aware of MoDs view.
I’m reminded of a quote that went along the lines of ….”creating the perfect HQ happens in periods of decline, in periods of expansion and progress, there is no time to create the perfect HQ…”
I must dig into my books to see where I read that.
How could our country not have a strategic military HQ? It has. It is the MoD Head Office ie MoD Main Building. I find this baffling.
Yes, it’s a puzzle. Do you know what organisations/units/departments are represented in the existing ‘headquarters’ entities?
I do, yes! But its a long list mate, just look up the make up and history of Joint Forces Command and now StratCom.
Before that, in the 90s, the rationale for the MoD when they created a “Strategic” HQ in the form of PJHQ!
Reinventing the wheel by the sounds of it.
Thanks. So basic googling returns this from the Joint Forces Command web site. “We provide the foundation and supporting framework for successful operations by ensuring joint capabilities like medical services, training, intelligence, information systems and cyber operations, are developed and managed. We also provide the command and control for overseas defence operations.”
Thinking about the higher ‘strategic’ level decisions which are taken that result, for example in an OPV being assigned to the Gulf of Guinea or troop units being stationed in Kenya. These type of decisions are driven by foreign policy initiatives and might also involve diplomatic, health, commercial, domestic and export industrial components as well as defence capabilities. Say we want to stabilise Nigeria, increase our exports, resist Wagner and / or Boko Haram in the region – what UK forces / assets would be deployed to achieve this objective? Answer in part…. we should resurrect the West Africa squadron, let’s ask BAE to build some OPVs and replace the knackered Scimitar boats in Gib. Flight of fancy perhaps and I’m far from sure the batch 2 Rivers came into being this way, but you get the general idea: joined up pro-active rather than reactive thinking.
Maybe the foreign office, the MOD, the business secretary…should be part of this new Strategic HQ. Just a thought.
Well it was news to me that this was in the works. I missed something….slaps wrist….! So yes, maybe that will be it.
Not gospel, just a surmise on my part from reading around a bit on the ( fashionable) concept of ‘mission oriented govt’ . I suspect that’s why they hired Sue Gray, a civil service insider who would understand how you organise so as to get different ministerial departments to function as a mission ( aka longterm project) team. Be interesting to see what happens.
Impressed by your posts on UK leads NATO reaction force by the way 👏
Cheers.
Military Strategic HQ – no idea what that means. We have the MoD Head Office filling that role.
Exactly. They do the strategic direction, so in effect the CoSC, alongside input from wider central government, with DCMO in support, which is split between both Main Building and Northwood.
Yep. Sitting above the MoD Head Office and its SofS is the PM and the Cabinet or War Cabinet (when formed) – that is the ‘Grand Strategic’ level. Sitting below MoD is the set-up you mention.
Labour needs to study these pages! No need for another strategic HQ.
BTW, I am still hopeful that Healey will do a better job than Shapps. I am trying to do ‘glass half full’!!
At this late hour, with D Day tomorrow, that is all we have left mate!!
Haha! Good one!
Yes we are all going to have so much fun..first predicted and then arguing about the outcome and what it means…sadly I’m looking forward to it..but I guess that’s what happens when you retire….
I am retired too. It is interesting to speculate.
And the new NATO test what ever that means.
I beleive they commited to a review within 3 months.
Just a few predictions. Elections in the bag for Labour so its more a wait and see rather than debate it. I won’t be voting for Tories or Labour so will have the luxury of not endorsing the current muppets or the incoming muppets policies.😀
Based on 3 drivers for Labour, Jobs, Europe and North Atlantic (I mean Not global, because that was a Tory policy), better conditions for serving personel. All will need to be achieved with the same funds.
More on personel better housing,pay etc. Very welcome imo but should be from new funds not existing. I don’t think they roll back cuts in numbers because it an easy blame the Tories card they can play in the first couple of years. The focus on numbers will decrease if they don’t cut it further which they won’t. Army will be a winner under Labour imo.
One carrier mothballed fairly soon and no more deployemnts to the Pacific, it would very hyprocritical for them to deploy globally after slatting the Tories for doing it. Within the next term 1 sold or leased to EU. OPVs back to Europe, they’re need to protect the sprawlling offshore infrstructure The mothballed carrier will free up crew (700) so more ships will be built mainly to preserve jobs, logically frigates or similar would surfice for an EU defence posture.
Flip to the F35A for European defence aligns better with EU allies and saves on purchase price and operating costs epecially if a deal is done of maintenance with partners but most MRO is depot based anyway, Or a futher Typhoon order (mainly for jobs). This logical and capitalised on the savings mothballed carrier as we need less F35Bs. Tempest may continue, but I would think that with gritted teeth, they would rather be in the EU project so the loyal wingman part of GCAP will come from FCAS. But I’d be unsupprise if GCAP never made a maiden flight and we joined FCAS, there’s a logical saving to be made as we have larger cost burden in GCAP and its far more likely to tick a NATO test box than a ‘Global’ program. Red Arrows scrapped or reduced to a prop base airframe, easy saving, easy one to pin on the Tories to. Stratgis lift could be increase to support the landforce.
Over seas bases shut,which one we’ll but certain anything beyond the gulf will go Belize also. Logical there’s no jungles in Europe so why retain based in places like Belize to train for jungle warfare. Not sure how the Isreali’s extracting oil from the Falklands will sit wih many in the Labour party, kind of double whammy for them, its Isreal and its oil and they will be paying for the defence of it. Hope this comes up at the party conference just for entertainment value.
Dreadnoughts are safe AUKUS not so sure, could fail a NATO test. Trump in the white house could be a deciding factor on AUKUS, it wasn’t popular with the party faithfull with Biden in the Whitehouse. Its again about jobs but stick an alternative in its place an Unions will sign up for it.
FSS could be reshapedbut will cost them more to do this but again jobs could drive this.
More UK made kit, great but that could come at a premium from an already stretched defence budget and I have my doubts as we’re short of core skills and with a push for net zero that will require more engineers fabricators etc, basicall the same folk who work in defence, I have my doubts we can economically acheive this. Sure way to make a disfunction jobs market is have more jobs than people so salaries rocket up, great some will say people need more moeny but can defence budget afford it, ah nope Or Labour open up the immigration taps(speperate topic)
We’ll still be spending 2% but differently.
You say sell a carrier. Who do you think would buy it?
India may. But there’s a desire for the EU to operate one, so I think this could be an option under lease.
NATO Test – it is not up to the Labour Govt to define or institute a NATO test – that is for NATO. Years ago NATO had the ORT (Operational Readiness Test) – no idea if that is still in place.
A review within 3 months is sharp – it mostly takes much longer – Blair’s first SDR review took 14 months.
I don’t see one carrier getting mothballed – if the active carrier becomes U/S, how do you quickly get your mothballed carrier up and running?
Belize – of course there are no jungles in Europe, but so what? The army is not restricted to operating only in Europe – they have always been trained to operate world-wide.
I think you’ll find Labour are designing a new NATO test.
The rest, as I said it’s not for debate time will tell Labour will be in power tomorrow And I don’t mind being wrong if it turns out differently I’ll best the first to say I was wrong.
Maybe what Labour means by a NATO test is not what I thought it meant. Maybe they mean that everything the armed forces do or is equipped with should be of benefit to NATO….otherwise it gets canned.
That’s pretty much it any equipment or capabilities not meeting the new NATO test scrapped but likewise any capability gaps plugged. The exact parameters are probably now under discussion reality is it was a dig a Tory global defence posture rather than something thoughtful. Now they need to figure it out.
So if NATO expect us to contribute 2 x SSNs, we scrap the others?
It could be yes. NATO doesn’t stipulate Nations need SSNs so how Labour would interpret that. But their commitment to CASD means we need SSN are a requirement. But how many, do we need one popping into Australia or deploying to the Pacific. I think Labour will want some fuzziness in the NATO test to suit them, i.e., to protect blue-collar jobs.
What will annoy me most if Labour says protecting Europe and North Atlantic is strategic goal then keep other capabilities that aren’t required because they’re scared of the media or unions That just a different version of the Tories where they say its Global strategy the don’t have the right foce structure
My example (SSN) was not the best but you get the general idea. If this NATO test is a test that MoD (not NATO) will apply to our current equipment fleets to winnow out anything that does not have a NATO role, then the global Britain kit may get canned.
It is at least coherent with veering away from the Asia-Pacific tilt of the Conservatives.
However I disapprove – Britain is and should always be a global player.
It is what it is the voting public made their decision.
The irony of the tilt back to Europe though is North Korea has deployed ‘non combat troops’ to Ukraine, China has joined exercises in Belarus . As our global ambitions shrink theirs appear to be expanding.
I think the NATO test may nake a rather large assumption the enemy is on the boarder of Europe which may not be a reality.
I had not heard about North Korean troops in Ukraine on Russia’s side. Interesting.
The NATO area is of course the Euro-Atlantic region, but there is flexibility. NATO ran their ISAF operation in Afghanistan.
Starmers words just yesterday.
Speaking on the sidelines of the NATO summit in Washington on Wednesday, he also signalled that helping NATO defend Europe from Russian aggression will be deemed a higher priority than sending military ships, jets and soldiers on exercises to Asia
I think most people would agree with Starmer’s point? I do. But because British involvement in exercises in Asia-Pacific might be a lower priority than defence of our continent, doesn’t mean we shouldn’t do it at all.
I’m not convinced that 2.5% is coming from labour but I know for a fact it’s not from the Conservatives (war in our backdoor and no increase and statements about increasing it the parliament after next so far enough away that they can’t be judged on it).
Military is not a focus for the voters and so I won’t trust either party but if I had to choose I would go with the one that is in the maybe rather than for sure won’t.
Labour continually state intention to spend 2.5%.
Without giving any dates. Let’s see what happens in practice.
Labour should supply a timeline for the 2.5% around the time that their SDSR is published…at the latest.
We will see. Can’t blame them for sitting on the fence, as they didn’t have the full picture of the public accounts when they were in opposition
He is following party line. Its Pro EU defence anti Global Britain. Basically the opposite of the Tories.
Well, let’s see, and I hope we’re all still around in 10 years to find out… always glad to proven wrong! but I’m not 100%convinced we’ll be free of a European war….. But is policy all up to Healey? And how much has he been pleasing the left? It’s what politicians of all parties do.. keep your enemies close! Certainly Labour has, under the previous leadership, looks soft on all those places… but this seems to be a different outfit. I hope so anyway.
Defence Policy is not crafted by the DS alone. PM and Foreign Sec lead first.
I think wait until after the first meeting with the US & the reality is likely a potential choice of participating in the Pacific or US not providing it’s full support to NATO.
If Trump gets in all the civil servants in the pentagon will be doing their best to keep NATO in at least the status quo – Trump will only need a good excuse to potentially get his way & pull out. Even a democracy government will be keen for us to op in Pacific. AUKUS also has big money involved with Australia & SSNs. Australia could easily simply move to US assets & they’d threaten that as well.
So unless John & labour are extremely stupid… there’s absolutely 0 chance of no Pacific tilt.
It not Healey spouting off the RUSI speech content is on the Labour website or was for sometime.
Bit of an aside, I see the Falklands are developing the oil fields down there with an Isreali company. So we’ll have Labour government sending British forces to defend an Isreali companies assets, whilst and shutting down North Sea oil. Thats got to be a huge conudrum for some in the Labour party. But one I find quite amusing.
The oil is too deep to extract commercially.
Spot on DM , have your self a drink 🍺 🇬🇧
Considering starmer has been going to Ukraine and talk about future aid over a year before the election, tells me this is nonsense.
Also labour voted with the govrrment over multitary actions in recent years.
Base a party on what it does rather than on statements of one member.
As for the pacific tilt, I would agree that I don’t understand it. We should focus on what supports our own economy and not just pander to the US, plus the Pacific tilt really is just flag flying there is no evidence of a real tilt, the armed forces are too small to do that at this point.
“Considering starmer has been going to Ukraine and talk about future aid over a year before the election, tells me this is nonsense. Also labour voted with the govrrment over multitary actions in recent years.Base a party on what it does rather than on statements of one member.”
All of that, Steve, is related to European defence and NATO, which is not what I was referring to.
“We should focus on what supports our own economy”
Well both AUKUS, and GCAP, do that.
“plus the Pacific tilt really is just flag flying there is no evidence of a real tilt, the armed forces are too small to do that at this point.”
Which I referenced in my first reply to Wyn. The only increase to the small forces that have been there for decades are the two OPVs.
What your not referencing are the strategic locations that are the thrust of my concern that do not fit with the shadow DS comments.
Please explain how a region representing a tiny fraction of our trade is important to our economy?
Don’t get me wrong supporting our allies where we can is important but when we have a war waging in our backdoor that is seriously hitting our cost of living, let’s focus our limited assets on that first.
We joined the CPTPP to increase our trade chances at the Pacific rim. It is expanding faster than Europe and as we can get a slice, why shouldn’t we?
Look at the government’s own data joining the cptpp represent a less than 1% increase to our gdp, because we already had deals with all the major countries in it.
One. One needs to be in an expanding future market, not a diminishing one.
Two, AUKUS and GCAP are about military capability for me, the economic aspects are a bonus. This is UKDJ!
It still does not justify Labour hamstringing our nation further due to their pro EU ideology.
Costs of living? China says hello if that deteriorates.
I hope you’ll come back in twelve months time with all the good news Wyn. I don’t like what the Tories have done, Osborne in particular, but I wouldn’t trust Labour to organise a boy scout trrop, never mind our armed forces. Don’t forget we lost more capabilty under Blair/Brown than we have under the Tories. History repeating itself.
👍
Well, the Harriers went under Tories, and the cancellation of Nimrod 4 was theirs too. So I’d be interested in a fact check. Everybody, of course, bought into the peace dividend, even when it was no longer paying. No party is free from blame. I just think think Labour party might HAVE to face up to realities and get you and me to pay for more defence. Putin is not joking, after all. And wen Trump gets in, as looks increasingly likely, Europe will have to step up, which is probably more than about time. The Chinese curse has come true. We live in interesting times :😟
Fact checks! Love this, as I can provide that.
“Well, the Harriers went under Tories”
Ahhh, I love when posters say that!
Look again at the dates, when 1,3,4 and 20R Sqns RAF went, with Harrier GR9s, and 800,801,899 Sqns FAA with Sea Harrier FA2s. A Google ( as a link will just be moderated ) of “Joint Force Harrier” will suffice.
You’ll find most had gone before 2010 when Cameron came to power.
“and the cancellation of Nimrod 4 was theirs too”
Yes, MRA4 was cancelled under the Tories. What everyone loves to forget is that the reduction from 21 to 18 to 16 to 12 to 9 airframes came previously under Labour.
“I just think think Labour party might HAVE to face up to realities and get you and me to pay for more defence.”
On that, Wyn, I hope you’re right! And yes, no party is free of blame, which is why I choke on listening to Healey of all people, considering he was in HMT from 2002 on, complaining about the Tories hollowing out the armed forces when in his time, Escorts went from 35 to 23, and SSN from 12 to 7, and Fast Jet Sqns from 23 to 12.
Those facts, I will never stop reminding people. The only reason the army escaped was due to afghan and Iraq, and it was still, even then, shedding artillery, tanks, and armoured vehicles.
That the blasted Tories were so strategically blind as to continue with Labours 13 years of cuts after 2010 and not seeing the changing geostrategic situation with Russia and China does not excuse the fact that those cuts happened, they just compounded them.
I shall bow to your superior knowledge!
Bless you, mate. No need.
But the gracious response is appreciated, unlike others over the years who either flat denied or just attacked me another ways.
Some just hate to be corrected.
Cheers.
Thanks, Daniele, I think I ran out of runway on this one… but I tend to learn best by making mistakes!
With the wealth of knowledge on here you learn something every time you click..👍
I couldn’t have put it better. In fact I didn’t! Thanks. 😀
I was coming back with some figures Wyn but Daniele, with usual alacrity, has beaten me to it.. I’m quite happy to be put in my place if I’m wrong about Healey and Co.😉
I know I’ll be corrected on this site – and that’s how I learn! In know of little bit about a little bit…
I would agree with Daniele, Labour is very pro EU Defence. Healey has already co authored a paper on defence cooperation with Germany as a prime example, this is not Healey just spouting off. He made RUSI speach which would have be approved and that speach was on Labour website,content was pro Europe and against global Britain. The reason for this is just becuase its the opposite to the Tories tbh rather then a thought out defence policy.
ps won’t be voting Tory or Labour.
Thanks, that’s very helpful and gives me the background I lack.. Back in the 1960 I remember the “East of Aden” policy which brought everything back to the Med in the 1970s – apart from Hong Kong until the lease was up. At what point do we recognize we’re only a “used to be” world power… and can only help in the Pacific in a high tech low numbers sort of way. (Which is not to say we shouldn’t do that) But the world situation is changing almost daily.. so how to pitch a policy for the future? As a matter of interest do France or Germany – any other European nation – have a similar situation to the Falklands – a distant small place they need to keep safe?
That is the thing Wyn. Yes, we WERE a world power. And in some ways we still are. But a legacy of that time is our military installations out there, the left overs of empire.
And those are what I’m scared of losing. They give the UK something other medium powers lack – airfields, ports, and intelligence installations that give the UK reach.
On the EU things Expat mentions, although I voted out, quite happy with Labour defence agreements with Germany. They are an ally after all. They should be in addition to, NOT instead of.
France certainly does. It was recently involved in operations in Africa as an example.
Hi M8, I appreciate your fears but simple fact is World changes and we have to change with it. In the ME it looks like Saudi is pivoting towards BRICS and that makes our presence untenable.
We do not have a Defence budget that can cover full CASD and an all round capability in everything.
I am doubtful that post Thursday that we will see much increase in Defence spending. I’ve sat down and ploughed my way through the main manifestos and no ones sums add up to meet all their commitments.
It’s all a bit depressing to be honest, when the most stand out individual Politician is a toss up between Ed “stuntman” Davey and Nigel “Nope no Fascists here” Farage then it’s not good.
I don’t trust Starmer as he has committed to nothing and avoids direct questions like the plague.
It may surprise you to know but until Farage jumped in I was firmly voting reform. Now I can’t there’s just too much about him I can’t reconcile my morals with.
Which is a personal shame for me as our local candidate is a M8 I’ve known since we were at Tech so thats 45 years, and I’ve voted for him consistently since he was UKIP.
Farage sorry he blew it with his NATO comments and his “I’m the man that destroyed the BNP” statement for me. Wonder where they crawled off to ?
But long term what really worries me about him is his history of cosying up to Powerful Dictatorial Nationalists such as Trump and Putin.
So I’ve looked at the latest Polls and Labour have dropped a bit as have reform, Labour will win bar a miracle so for me it’s just a matter of reducing the size of his majority.
So I am reluctantly voting for the only one has actually committed to 2.5% which is Sunak. Daft thing is I’d actually like to see what he could do with a fresh 5 year mandate.
Hi mate. We’re screwed, then..
The World changes, so…translation, the West withdraws and Russia China and the authoritarian states move into the vacuum and shape as they please.
And Labour cannot see the sheer shirt sighted idiocy of that?
All those Labour apologists with Rose tinted glasses who have had a go at me for years here for stating my fears have suddenly vanished..
Yes mate, meant to say I’d noted before your UKIP Reform credentials!
My respect, and apologies, as I’d had you down as a Scots Labour man through and through.
Unlimited immigration, as it’s been these last 30 years or so, the environment, and defence, are what matter to me.
So I cannot vote Tory or Labour for either, though Labour may be better environmentally, if they don’t bankrupt the country in the race to net zero.
And also they’re no doubt better on animal welfare and things like hunting which I also despise.
Don’t worry just breathe, all will be fine 😀
I’m holding you to that, mate.
You’re also aware, aren’t you, that John Healey, when highlighting the Tory defence cuts, was in the Treasury from 2002 to 2007, so presided over the financially driven defence cuts that hit the military at that time.
Oh the Irony!
Is that hunting for sport or for food?
Sport mate. Fox hunting, Badger baiting, hare coursing, and all forms of animal cruelty. Even Corbyn had policies in that area I was in agreement with!
The crew are all reservists. That’s so they can all be called up and it would be manned as a combatant in time of war..if you not a UK citizen and an RN reservist you cannot work on these ships.
which was specifically very interesting when two of them spent pretty much their entire time as Baltic RoRo ferries..
Yes, the term they used when these first appeared was Sponsored Reserves.
I’d read they wanted to introduce or had introduced this, to what remained of our HET fleet after the idiots cut them.
Interestingly they were always going to this as the RFA HET fleet was only an interim measure until the Points came on line…UK strategic sea lift is an interesting story as the RN has always had a complete blind spot in regards to strategic sea lift ( they have never wanted to have any involvement not even via association with the RFA) ..it’s one of the areas of intra service fuckwittery this time lead by the RN..in which they pretty much ignored the needs of the army to be moved anywhere by sea other than token forces that would support the RM.
before the mid 1990s the RNs efforts around sea lift were essentially only around the RM, with no though about the army at all as a separate deployable force…if the army needed transport the MOD would have to mug a few shipping companies. The 6 round table class and 2 fearless class were essentially what the navy thought it needed for the RMs to do amphibious stuff and maybe let the army join in a bit.
It was only in the 1996 defence white paper that anyone had a thought about the army needing proper strategic sea lift resources and that was because our commercial shipping industry had been decimated and there were very few UK flagged commercial vessels left to mug in time of war and the 1996 paper and the later defence review developed the concept of the joint rapid reaction force that needed some form of sea lift that was not available before.
The Points came from that and the plan was they would always be some from of commercially run ships. As it was going to take around 14 years to get the Points..the RFA was asked to run a couple of chartered vehicle carriers until the points came on line….
But the sad truth is the points were actually the MODs first efforts to get any strategic sea lift for the army…and I don’t think the navy really ever wanted anything to do with it.
Sorry mate, I did not clarify, I meant the Army HET fleet.
Ooh yes the Oshkosh fleet, that took over from the Scammell commander in 2001..that was a cut..
125 commanders owned and operated by the army replaced with a PFI for 92 Oshkosh’s supplies via a PFI..they are owned and operated by FTX logistics limited not the army…they employ 85 drivers who if they sent outside of the UK are deployed as reservists…so driving in the UK they do it as a civilian..drive it into France they do it as a soldier….
Completely agree..a really stupid move by Labour…I cannot stand the whole PFI thing..it’s just a stupid bureaucratic nonsense to hide national debt that in the end costs more and reduces efficiency…( all PFIs are shite).
On this we are the same mate!
On the bases thing further down, specifically intelligence sites, it just occurred to me as I was doing the washing up that David Milliband was the FSec who okayed them in 2007.
And he was Labour. So it will be a benchmark for me at whether this Labour match that or are the left that I fear.
I really hope not..I’m hopeful that starmer is more centrist than left wing…one of the most cringey moments was when a journalist asked him if he was socialist….he said yes…but his voice changed and reading his eye movements it looked like he was not telling the whole truth.
The only thing I would say is what state were those vehicles in if they were all not in constant use. I base this on my late father in law worked in a TA barracks and a number of the vehicles there that were in not the best of states due to infrequency use. you are then pass the maintenance bill on to the operator. It like the story about the GreenGodess Fire engines, up on axis stands in storage and once a month some one had to go and turn each wheel over a few complete rotations on ever single one with a bar and socket to stop the hub seals drying out
I was just playing the devil’s advocate in the context of MRSS of course. Point taken about published views on labour thinking about NATO vs Indo Pacific. But that said I have to say the future looks so volatile I wouldn’t care to guess the direction of any future govt. I suspect ‘the West’ will find itself reacting to pressures largely outside its control.
To be honest Daniele, I actually think a lot of it will depend on the US election and future strategic direction…
Europe at the moment is very much pivoting east of suez..look at the German, Spanish and French deployments to pacific sky..that’s a lot of aircraft European nations have sent to the pacific…Italy is even planning to spend a carrier battlegroup into the pacific at the end of the year…Europe is getting very involved in the pacific…everyone is “under the radar” starting to seriously send messages to china about the fact they would be fighting the whole of the liberal democracies ( pacific, North America and European)….
There is also a massive industrial reason to be focused on the pacific for any Labour government….the number of frigates we are selling as well as SSNs and reactors means a pacific strategic tilt now dovetails with a labours industrial strategy.
But I think what will actually drive the UKs defence agenda is not what our individual parties want, but external geopolitical and geostrategic drivers across the western Alliance.
The western alliance is to “not sugar coat” the problem just about to hit a crunch point at very high speed…driven by the far right. This may lead to massive levels of instability and insecurity in Europe that drives the core Western European and Northern European nations into a focus of defending the core…and access to energy and raw materials.
1) We are seeing small number of European NATO countries in southern and Eastern Europe start to drift to the far right..and essentially share the values of Putin ( who is a fascist)….this could very much destabilise the south eastern part of NATO..especially if Ukraine was forced into defeat…
2) Trump…if Trump essentially forces a peace on Ukraine and indicates he has abandoned the U.S. strategic alliance with Europe…the European NATO countries including the UK..will need to undertake a massive change in geostrategic and geopolitical posture…effectively abandoning any support to the Pacific democracies and the U.S…focusing on their own strategic needs..which would be:
A) stabilisation of NATOs frontier..including managing the enemies within that frontier…basically facing off off russia and its power block.
B) energy security…this would include a massive uptick in European security for the eastern Indian occean.
C) security of raw materials: significantly greater engagement by European nations in the global south.
D) European industrial capacity..especially military.
E) massive investment in upgrading the European nuclear deterrent
so personally I think it’s all on the US….will it want to stay I. A strategic alliance with Europe…if it does not, I suspect all European nations including the UK will be forced to walk away from the pacific.
What I’d say to part of that mate, re Europe moving to the Pacific. European countries are moving further right wing, especially France.
And we are moving left.
So to me, that does not correspond with Labour somehow falling in line.
And again, I’m not on about “the Pacific” I’m on about strategic installations I fear we will unilaterally give up to concentrate on Labour’s primary EU, NATO, euro centric stance.
its a good point on the bases and installations..once lost never returning…we shall all have to hold our breathe ( or not) until the new review…then we can have a good go over the meat and bones of it.
Oh I’ll be here to remind people who voted Labour in. You know me. Every slightest cut that might be ignored by the masses as insignificant, but aren’t.
Not to me.
You still need to supply the Falklands!!
No and yes…these are commercial ships specifically designed to allow them to be used as military strategic sea lift…but they operate as commercial vessels and when not used by the MOD have toddled off to do commercial work. So when we had 6 you would always find two of them off acting as RoRo ferries in the Baltic.
Interestingly the crewing is specific in that they are all British crews who are all reservists..which means in time of war they are classed as combatants.
They are all PFI ships and not owned by the MOD. The PFI contract has just been extended to 2031.
Good background. Thx.
Please refer to the Houthi as terrorists. This sounds too much like the BBC for me.
Good point attacking civilian merchants.And from everyone.
Are these Points armed with anything? Bolt on Phalanx, 30mm, 12.5mm?
No, they’re commercial ships. Operated by an entirely civilian crew, not even part of the RFA, though in my humble opinion they should be.
Great ships, sitting 🦆. Hope the forces there can send some 🚀 back to the senders.
Completely agree..and they should be fitted for basic self defence…in war time the crew will all be operational ( they are all RN reservists) and the points classed as combatants..so why not arm them..
In theory they can be leased out for commercial use when not need by the MOD ? having them fitted out as a mini warship might cause a problems there ( not least have to pay more for them)
1st of July, not July 1st.
We need to start spoofing internet sites that display ships plying the Red Sea as these are being used by the Houthis to identify ships.
Turn UK snd US ships into Iraqi and Chinese vessels and visa versa. Could have some real fun.
That’s a very naughty thought… Lol 😁
Might need some Precision Strike Missiles to strike back. 🚀
Send some destroyer to cover It, oh , sorry there are no available.
The BEST they can do is to scrap the armed forces, for what to do It step by step ?, IS not necessary so long agony…
There’s another destroyer on the way.
Have they added any CAMM yet? While not trial the Dragonfire? Or NSM, which I think can be used in land attack?
It would nice to trial Dragonfire if possible.
It just takes a long time to sort this stuff out. I doubt Dragonfire will be ready for a few years, even on the accelerated schedule. CAMM will be added as part of a suite of changes, Sea Viper Evolution, so that won’t be a fast job. I’d have thought NSM should be the quickest to install, but it seems that until the tests come back from Somerset, they are reluctant to add it to other ships. And Somerset is being repaired.
Without a proper gun will be expending costly Asters against $20000 drones.
Two – three T31s would be good…when they become available.