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.


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.

Avatar photo
George has a degree in Cyber Security from Glasgow Caledonian University and has a keen interest in naval and cyber security matters and has appeared on national radio and television to discuss current events. George is on Twitter at @geoallison
Subscribe
Notify of
guest

119 Comments
oldest
newest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Paul.P
Paul.P (@guest_831352)
10 days ago

An example of a non-complex warship?

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli (@guest_831353)
10 days ago
Reply to  Paul.P

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.

Wyn Beynon
Wyn Beynon (@guest_831366)
10 days ago

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.

WillD
WillD (@guest_831368)
10 days ago
Reply to  Wyn Beynon

👍

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli (@guest_831371)
10 days ago
Reply to  Wyn Beynon

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… Read more »

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli (@guest_831373)
10 days ago

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.

Bazza
Bazza (@guest_831377)
10 days ago

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.

Wyn Beynon
Wyn Beynon (@guest_831436)
10 days ago
Reply to  Bazza

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.

Graham Moore
Graham Moore (@guest_831442)
10 days ago
Reply to  Wyn Beynon

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.

Wyn Beynon
Wyn Beynon (@guest_831447)
10 days ago
Reply to  Graham Moore

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!?

Paul.P
Paul.P (@guest_831452)
10 days ago
Reply to  Wyn Beynon

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.

Jonathan
Jonathan (@guest_831462)
10 days ago
Reply to  Paul.P

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).

Paul.P
Paul.P (@guest_831519)
9 days ago
Reply to  Jonathan

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;… Read more »

Last edited 9 days ago by Paul.P
Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli (@guest_831473)
9 days ago
Reply to  Wyn Beynon

“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.

Jon
Jon (@guest_831491)
9 days ago

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.

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli (@guest_831510)
9 days ago
Reply to  Jon

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.

Graham Moore
Graham Moore (@guest_831827)
8 days ago
Reply to  Jon

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.

Paul.P
Paul.P (@guest_831520)
9 days ago

Yes, it’s a puzzle. Do you know what organisations/units/departments are represented in the existing ‘headquarters’ entities?

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli (@guest_831523)
9 days ago
Reply to  Paul.P

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.

Paul.P
Paul.P (@guest_831549)
9 days ago

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,… Read more »

Last edited 9 days ago by Paul.P
Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli (@guest_831553)
9 days ago
Reply to  Paul.P

Well it was news to me that this was in the works. I missed something….slaps wrist….! So yes, maybe that will be it.

Paul.P
Paul.P (@guest_831576)
9 days ago

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 👏

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli (@guest_831578)
9 days ago
Reply to  Paul.P

Cheers.

Graham Moore
Graham Moore (@guest_831587)
9 days ago
Reply to  Wyn Beynon

Military Strategic HQ – no idea what that means. We have the MoD Head Office filling that role.

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli (@guest_831646)
9 days ago
Reply to  Graham Moore

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.

Graham Moore
Graham Moore (@guest_831719)
9 days ago

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’!!

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli (@guest_831723)
9 days ago
Reply to  Graham Moore

At this late hour, with D Day tomorrow, that is all we have left mate!!

Graham Moore
Graham Moore (@guest_831829)
8 days ago

Haha! Good one!

Jonathan
Jonathan (@guest_831461)
10 days ago
Reply to  Graham Moore

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….

Graham Moore
Graham Moore (@guest_831607)
9 days ago
Reply to  Jonathan

I am retired too. It is interesting to speculate.

Expat
Expat (@guest_831479)
9 days ago
Reply to  Graham Moore

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.… Read more »

Nevis
Nevis (@guest_831565)
9 days ago
Reply to  Expat

You say sell a carrier. Who do you think would buy it?

Expat
Expat (@guest_832021)
8 days ago
Reply to  Nevis

India may. But there’s a desire for the EU to operate one, so I think this could be an option under lease.

Graham Moore
Graham Moore (@guest_831610)
9 days ago
Reply to  Expat

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?… Read more »

Expat
Expat (@guest_832024)
8 days ago
Reply to  Graham Moore

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.

Graham Moore
Graham Moore (@guest_832059)
8 days ago
Reply to  Expat

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.

Expat
Expat (@guest_832209)
7 days ago
Reply to  Graham Moore

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.

Graham Moore
Graham Moore (@guest_832295)
7 days ago
Reply to  Expat

So if NATO expect us to contribute 2 x SSNs, we scrap the others?

Expat
Expat (@guest_832679)
5 days ago
Reply to  Graham Moore

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… Read more »

Graham Moore
Graham Moore (@guest_832918)
4 days ago
Reply to  Expat

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.

Expat
Expat (@guest_833079)
4 days ago
Reply to  Graham Moore

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.

Graham Moore
Graham Moore (@guest_833981)
20 hours ago
Reply to  Expat

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.

Expat
Expat (@guest_833996)
19 hours ago
Reply to  Graham Moore

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

Graham Moore
Graham Moore (@guest_834102)
6 hours ago
Reply to  Expat

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.

Steve
Steve (@guest_831468)
10 days ago
Reply to  Wyn Beynon

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.

Graham Moore
Graham Moore (@guest_834072)
8 hours ago
Reply to  Steve

Labour continually state intention to spend 2.5%.

Steve
Steve (@guest_834074)
8 hours ago
Reply to  Graham Moore

Without giving any dates. Let’s see what happens in practice.

Graham Moore
Graham Moore (@guest_834176)
4 hours ago
Reply to  Steve

Labour should supply a timeline for the 2.5% around the time that their SDSR is published…at the latest.

Steve
Steve (@guest_834183)
4 hours ago
Reply to  Graham Moore

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

Expat
Expat (@guest_831458)
10 days ago
Reply to  Bazza

He is following party line. Its Pro EU defence anti Global Britain. Basically the opposite of the Tories.

Wyn Beynon
Wyn Beynon (@guest_831441)
10 days ago

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.

Graham Moore
Graham Moore (@guest_834185)
4 hours ago
Reply to  Wyn Beynon

Defence Policy is not crafted by the DS alone. PM and Foreign Sec lead first.

Simon m
Simon m (@guest_831451)
10 days ago

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… Read more »

Expat
Expat (@guest_831456)
10 days ago

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.

Graham Moore
Graham Moore (@guest_831595)
9 days ago
Reply to  Expat

The oil is too deep to extract commercially.

Andrew D
Andrew D (@guest_831431)
10 days ago

Spot on DM , have your self a drink 🍺 🇬🇧

Steve
Steve (@guest_831466)
10 days ago

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… Read more »

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli (@guest_831472)
10 days ago
Reply to  Steve

“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,… Read more »

Steve
Steve (@guest_831481)
9 days ago

Please explain how a region representing a tiny fraction of our trade is important to our economy?

Steve
Steve (@guest_831482)
9 days ago
Reply to  Steve

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.

Jon
Jon (@guest_831496)
9 days ago
Reply to  Steve

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?

Steve
Steve (@guest_831497)
9 days ago
Reply to  Jon

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.

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli (@guest_831508)
9 days ago
Reply to  Steve

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.

Geoff Roach
Geoff Roach (@guest_831422)
10 days ago
Reply to  Wyn Beynon

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.

Andrew D
Andrew D (@guest_831437)
10 days ago
Reply to  Geoff Roach

👍

Wyn Beynon
Wyn Beynon (@guest_831440)
10 days ago
Reply to  Geoff Roach

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… Read more »

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli (@guest_831527)
9 days ago
Reply to  Wyn Beynon

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… Read more »

Wyn Beynon
Wyn Beynon (@guest_831567)
9 days ago

I shall bow to your superior knowledge!

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli (@guest_831575)
9 days ago
Reply to  Wyn Beynon

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.

Wyn Beynon
Wyn Beynon (@guest_831711)
9 days ago

Thanks, Daniele, I think I ran out of runway on this one… but I tend to learn best by making mistakes!

Geoff Roach
Geoff Roach (@guest_831799)
9 days ago
Reply to  Wyn Beynon

With the wealth of knowledge on here you learn something every time you click..👍

Geoff Roach
Geoff Roach (@guest_831651)
9 days ago

I couldn’t have put it better. In fact I didn’t! Thanks. 😀

Geoff Roach
Geoff Roach (@guest_831650)
9 days ago
Reply to  Wyn Beynon

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.😉

Wyn Beynon
Wyn Beynon (@guest_831713)
9 days ago
Reply to  Geoff Roach

I know I’ll be corrected on this site – and that’s how I learn! In know of little bit about a little bit…

Expat
Expat (@guest_831453)
10 days ago
Reply to  Wyn Beynon

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.

Wyn Beynon
Wyn Beynon (@guest_831460)
10 days ago
Reply to  Expat

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… Read more »

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli (@guest_831528)
9 days ago
Reply to  Wyn Beynon

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.

Expat
Expat (@guest_832019)
8 days ago
Reply to  Wyn Beynon

France certainly does. It was recently involved in operations in Africa as an example.

ABCRodney
ABCRodney (@guest_831374)
10 days ago

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,… Read more »

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli (@guest_831383)
10 days ago
Reply to  ABCRodney

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..

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli (@guest_831398)
10 days ago
Reply to  ABCRodney

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.

Jim
Jim (@guest_831409)
10 days ago

Don’t worry just breathe, all will be fine 😀

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli (@guest_831415)
10 days ago
Reply to  Jim

I’m holding you to that, mate.

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli (@guest_831425)
10 days ago
Reply to  Jim

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!

DaveyB
DaveyB (@guest_831463)
10 days ago

Is that hunting for sport or for food?

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli (@guest_831529)
9 days ago
Reply to  DaveyB

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!

Jonathan
Jonathan (@guest_831419)
10 days ago

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..

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli (@guest_831421)
10 days ago
Reply to  Jonathan

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.

Jonathan
Jonathan (@guest_831433)
10 days ago

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… Read more »

Last edited 10 days ago by Jonathan
Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli (@guest_831530)
9 days ago
Reply to  Jonathan

Sorry mate, I did not clarify, I meant the Army HET fleet.

Jonathan
Jonathan (@guest_831544)
9 days ago

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… Read more »

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli (@guest_831546)
9 days ago
Reply to  Jonathan

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.

Jonathan
Jonathan (@guest_831551)
9 days ago

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.

Last edited 9 days ago by Jonathan
Simon
Simon (@guest_831769)
9 days ago
Reply to  Jonathan

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… Read more »

Paul.P
Paul.P (@guest_831449)
10 days ago

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.

Last edited 10 days ago by Paul.P
Jonathan
Jonathan (@guest_831469)
10 days ago

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… Read more »

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli (@guest_831475)
9 days ago
Reply to  Jonathan

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.

Jonathan
Jonathan (@guest_831478)
9 days ago

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.

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli (@guest_831488)
9 days ago
Reply to  Jonathan

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.

Mike
Mike (@guest_831688)
9 days ago

You still need to supply the Falklands!!

Jonathan
Jonathan (@guest_831418)
10 days ago
Reply to  Paul.P

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… Read more »

Paul.P
Paul.P (@guest_831454)
10 days ago
Reply to  Jonathan

Good background. Thx.

John
John (@guest_831360)
10 days ago

Please refer to the Houthi as terrorists. This sounds too much like the BBC for me.

AlexS
AlexS (@guest_831513)
9 days ago
Reply to  John

Good point attacking civilian merchants.And from everyone.

Quentin D63
Quentin D63 (@guest_831363)
10 days ago

Are these Points armed with anything? Bolt on Phalanx, 30mm, 12.5mm?

ChrisJ
ChrisJ (@guest_831395)
10 days ago
Reply to  Quentin D63

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.

Quentin D63
Quentin D63 (@guest_831401)
10 days ago
Reply to  ChrisJ

Great ships, sitting 🦆. Hope the forces there can send some 🚀 back to the senders.

Jonathan
Jonathan (@guest_831480)
9 days ago
Reply to  ChrisJ

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..

Simon
Simon (@guest_831765)
9 days ago
Reply to  Jonathan

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)

Bazza
Bazza (@guest_831376)
10 days ago

1st of July, not July 1st.

OldSchool
OldSchool (@guest_831386)
10 days ago

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.

Quentin D63
Quentin D63 (@guest_831402)
10 days ago
Reply to  OldSchool

That’s a very naughty thought… Lol 😁
Might need some Precision Strike Missiles to strike back. 🚀

Micki
Micki (@guest_831387)
10 days ago

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…

Last edited 10 days ago by Micki
Jon
Jon (@guest_831394)
10 days ago
Reply to  Micki

There’s another destroyer on the way.

Quentin D63
Quentin D63 (@guest_831404)
10 days ago
Reply to  Jon

Have they added any CAMM yet? While not trial the Dragonfire? Or NSM, which I think can be used in land attack?

AlexS
AlexS (@guest_831515)
9 days ago
Reply to  Quentin D63

It would nice to trial Dragonfire if possible.

Jon
Jon (@guest_831522)
9 days ago
Reply to  Quentin D63

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.

AlexS
AlexS (@guest_831514)
9 days ago
Reply to  Jon

Without a proper gun will be expending costly Asters against $20000 drones.

Quentin D63
Quentin D63 (@guest_831405)
10 days ago
Reply to  Micki

Two – three T31s would be good…when they become available.