A secure US only area on a Royal Navy aircraft carrier ?

Just reading about the ongoing issue about whether to put catapult and arresting gear on the new UK carrier or not.

In the article on the Telegraph they talk about he ship having an area closed to UK personnel for US military personnel only. This seems to be mentioned in passing.

It strikes me that this is extremely odd and I can't see the US allowing the Royal Navy the same facilities in return.

The US Navy clearly view the new carrier as a sort of reserve capability.

This implies all sort of deals have been done behind closed doors. It is highly likely that US technology has been used in the design of the aircraft carrier and perhaps this is part of the deal.

Whatever there is a very clear issue over sovereignty and I don't remember this ever being debated.

The strange story of the defence cuts

So its been announced that the carriers will be commissioned a few years later. That may mean the construction happens according to schedule, though frankly its hard to be sure from the disinformation the government issues.

Cancelling or delaying defence contracts is a sign of real desperation in the current climate. Why ? Because most of the money spent on them flows straight back to the UK economy. Blow a couple of billion on VAT reduction and the Chinese and South Koreans will be very grateful for the fiscal stimulus your sending them ( as most of what a change in VAT levels might impact will be electronic luxury items ). But buy a new tank and the money stays in the UK.

Now in the long term we can pay for what we eat by building tanks and aircraft carriers, but if your in the business of panic fiscal stimulus's then its a good place to spend your money. After all its only a few weeks ago we were being sold the spin line that the government would 'bring forward' major projects to stimulate the economy.

So what we are being told doesn't make sense - as it stands. Unless, unless government finances are much closer to collapse than is being admitted.

The carriers have been a very political project. The Royal Navy no longer has the escort vessels to protect them and their supply lines, since for political reasons the obvious use of Nuclear power has been ruled out.

In addition a new generation of Russian anti-ship missiles is giving the US Navy a real headache, and we must assume the problem is far worse for a small and shrinking navy like ours.

Of course the construction in Scottish ship yards helps Labour with its Unionist message in its central belt heartlands.

But what use are these carriers really ? Would they ever be risked against a half capable Navy ? You really need three to be serious, one or two are just for show. Fine for helping out in a local disaster, but worse than useless for defence of the realm. ( Why is it worse ? Well can you imagine the political implications of the loss of one of the two carriers with all hands ? Given current defence spending and strategy its more than likely to happen. It also encourages what's left of the Royal Navy to over reach itself. ).

In short they will be very expensive to maintain ( much larger crews ), to support (fuel ships etc as the Govt ducked the Nuclear power option), impossible to defend ( due to a shortage of escorts and new Russian missile technology ), and impossible to use ( due to the war over nature of the loss of either ship ).

Doesn't make a whole load of sense does it ?

If your going to make claims you must be prepared to defend them

Canada claims soveign rights over the narrow stretch of waterway that makes up the North West Passage. To help achieve this they are going to spend, and spend big on military hardware. ( By the way I think we are obliged to support the Canadians against the US and China on this one - remember Canada didn't blink at coming to our aide in the second world - indeed my local village hall is dedicated to the Canadian soldiers who were billeted here ).

Now our government wants to claim large areas of the Atlantic, especially the South Atlantic. Fine - indeed why not. If there's loads of oil and gas down there it will be easier to defend than having to fight our way in and out of the middle east.

But if your going to make such claims then you must back them up with a credible Navy.

Gordon Brown is planning the exact opposite.

I sometimes wonder if Gordon Brown's premiership will end with an Argentine flag flying over Port Stanley and British troops being lead of into captivity as the local population is cleansed to make way for new settlers.

Its very easy to see how it happens - and it can be prevented by a realistic Royal Navy.

We must decide if we want to fight land wars in Asia or defend what is ours. It seems we cannot afford both - and trying to do both is to invite disaster.

PS You'll note my underlying assumption about the security of oil being a key factor in our current military campaigns.

F*** off, mate!

Read - F*** off, mate! How the Aussies repelled Iranian gunboats (unlike our own hapless sailors)
By RICHARD SHEARS in the Daily Mail.

After reading the above article you're left wondering what has gone wrong with the Royal Navy. Mixed ships, Lesbian brawls in port, poor leadership and no one taking responsibility.

The Royal Navy's reputation is in tatters, and they will have to work very hard to get it back - if they ever start.

The white wash investigations published recently just make matters worse. There may well be internal processes ( maybe even confiscated iPods - but that sounds a bit risky for the Navy ), but leadership demanded demonstrable action and accountability. Yet again the Navy failed.

This plain refusal to serve the nation started with NuLabour's willingness to just lie if they thought they could get away with it - deny facts and mislead.

The cancer has spread.

Update see also EU Referendum here.

Did HMS Cornwall have its eye off the ball ?

Read Robert Fox over at the First Post who is suggesting that the crew of HMS Cornwall were distracted by performing for the media and may even have had their radar switched off ! ( Since you can get radar detectors for cars - its not unreasonable to expect the Iranian Revolutionary Guard to spot such things - perhaps it even gave them the opportunity. If any of these allergations are true then heads will have to roll.

Slowly but surely the pieces are starting to fall together. Shouldn't Sky News (the media outfit being entertained by the Navy at the time) have been the ones breaking this -why haven't they ?

It stinks.

To see ourselves as other see us

Read Mark Styen over at the Chicago Sun-Times.

Lets be clear here - because of Tony Blair and Gordon Brown under equipping the Royal Navy and allowing for its humiliation our standing in the world has dropped considerably.

Those of us who work and travel in the middle east are now all at more risk and the likelihood that Iran will try something bolder on the Royal Navy ( why not capture a whole ship ? ) goes up.

What would the Cornwall's response have been to sea skimming missiles ? To avoid escalating the situation perhaps ?

The 15 British military personnel behaved in the bare minimum of what could be expected. They certainly did not distinguish themselves. No one in the Arab world is going to fear the likes of them.

And no fear means no respect - which in the current circumstances is very serious indeed. As no doubt Iran intended.

I don't really blame Des Browne - the media fiasco in a minor footnote - skilfully used by Blair and Brown to deflect from the urgent failure of their military and defence policy.

And now the MSM starts to ask questions

Man in a Shed said this was a failure of the Royal Navy straight away (24 Mar 07).

EU Referendum has also been raising questions.

Now the MSM is starting to zero in. See "Vulnerable Royal Navy boats 'like sitting ducks'", by Thomas Harding, Defence Correspondent of the Daily Telegraph.

In my opinion this is a direct government failure for which the directly responsible minister is Des Browne - but the real responsibilities lie with Tony Blair and Gordon Brown.

The Royal Navy has been allowed to get into a state of dangerous imbalance and lack of resources. So much so that it couldn't now provide over the horizon air cover of the type the Sea Harrier ( retired by NuLabour) could have given. If the American's weren't in the Arabian Gulf then we would not dare go there alone.

There are many unanswered questions about this basic failure. The Iranian's are humiliating the Royal Navy and through this threatening the Gulf Arabs who might expect protection from us.

Its a national disgrace. Its very dangerous. Appearing weak is what caused the Falklands War - the last time the Navy was about to be cut back. Appearing weak in the middle east is doubly dangerous.

MOD admits Iraniains crossed 3.1 kilometers to kidnapp British service people

So how did they get so close to the boarder and not be detected or stopped on the way in or out ?

This is the elephant in the room here ! The MOD quotes nautical miles at 1.7 (just had a BBC news flash - will confirm distance latter ) - perhaps in the hope of minimising the distance in peoples minds (most of us have forgotten that a nautical mile is longer than a mile - hence the 3.1 kilometre's ).

So the Iranians had to travel 6.2 km stopping mid way to carry out the kidnap.

This is a spectacular embarrassment for the Navy and Britain's NuLabour government.

Update: BBC web page now up - they quote the 1.7nm, interesting to see if they convert it to km as the day goes forward.

Further update: EU Referendum gets what I'm talking about here - as does Ann Winterton.

What is the explaination for the Royal Navy's failure ?

There's a point not getting much attention right now, and its this:

We know the Iranian's are willing to concentrate force to capture British military personnel by crossing into Iraq. They have done this before.

Then why were they allowed to gain the upper hand ? (Was it an intelligence failure or is it that we are too weak to protect our own forces ?)

Do we have adequate forces for the capability and aggressive nature of the Iranian forces ?

Why could HMS Cornwell not support its boarding party ?

Why was no air support used ? Was it not available ?

What changes are begin made to prevent this occurring again ?

MiaS suspects that the failure of Gordon Brown to adequately fund the Royal Navy is part of this national humiliation and failure to protect our service personnel.

How much danger our the Royal Navy in from a preemptive attack on their ship with Iranian missiles ?

And finally - why aren't these questions being asked in the MSM - especially the BBC ?


Update: The BBC now have Former Royal Navy chief Admiral Sir Alan West answering some questions on this. The answer below is in the area I'm asking about.

extract ---

What are the rules of engagement in this type of situation?

The rules are very much de-escalatory, because we don't want wars starting. The reason we are there is to be a force for good, to make the whole area safe, to look after the Iraqi big oil platforms and also to stop smuggling and terrorism there.

So we try to downplay things. Rather then roaring into action and sinking everything in sight we try to step back and that, of course, is why our chaps were effectively able to be captured and taken away.

If we find this is going to be a standard practice we need to think very carefully about what rules of engagement we want and how we operate. One can't allow as a standard practice nations to capture a nation's servicemen. That is clearly wrong.

--end extract

Yes - it is clearly wrong - hence suggesting the Navy has failed.