Spectrum: Tension in the Gulf - the Warships Move In

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Page 1 490 of 999 DOCUMENTS The Times (London) July 22 1987, Wednesday Spectrum: Tension in the Gulf - The Warships Move In BYLINE: GEORGE HILL SECTION: Issue 62827. LENGTH: 420 words The Americans were uncharacteristically tight-lipped yesterday about their naval movements in the Gulf. Their Middle Eastern Force of nine ships - the guided missile cruisers Fox, Warden and Reeves, with four frigates and one destroyer - is believed to be in the vicinity of Fujairah, where two Kuwaiti tankers now flying the Stars and Stripes are waiting to pass through the Straits. The giant 80-000-ton carrier Constellation, with a force of about eight attendant ships, is officially said to be 'in the general area of the Indian Ocean and Arabian Sea'. It is undoubtedly not far off, and it is an open secret that the battleship Missouri is on its way to the area, with its devastating batteries of 16-inch guns, capable of firing shells as big as a small car. But she can scarcely be expected in the crisis zone in much less than 10 days. In addition, the helicopter carrier Guadalcanal moved through the Suez Canal last week. Britain's patrol to escort British-flag tankers through the Gulf is continuing, in spite of reports that the Royal Navy has pulled back from the Gulf to give the gathering US fleet a clear run. In the seven years since the outbreak of war, the Royal Navy has safely escorted more than 120 vessels through the zone. Naval sources stress that Britain's operations in the Gulf are continuing as usual, in implicit contrast with the US's highly-publicized build-up. But Britain's four-ship patrol group is due routinely to be relieved in the middle of next month by a similar group already on its way, so that for a period Britain will have a double-strength force in the region. Today the group consists of the Type 42 destroyer Cardiff, now at sea, and the Type 21 frigate Active, waiting at Muscat, just outside the missile-threatened Straits of Hormuz. They are served by the fleet Auxiliary Orangeleaf. The other fighting ship in the group, the Type 22 frigate Broadsword, is in Mombasa, Kenya, 2,000 miles from the Gulf. It is a paradox of the crisis that the Soviet Union has a strong common interest with the US there. Neither wants to see Iran triumph. Russia has already chartered three merchant ships o Kuwait, and one was attacked last month. There is no evidence of a Soviet naval escort role, although Soviet minesweepers have been clearing Iranian mines. The French role in the crisis is ambiguous. With three warships in the area, they have warned their merchant ships not to expect protection in the Gulf, but have agreed to escort one tanker. LOAD-DATE: September 21, 2000 LANGUAGE: English Page 2 Spectrum: Tension in the Gulf - The Warships Move In The Times (London) July 22 1987, Wednesday Copyright 1987 Times Newspapers Limited.

Copy Link

Recommended publications

Operation Kipion: Royal Navy Assets in the Persian by Claire Mills Gulf
BRIEFING PAPER Number 8628, 6 January 2020 Operation Kipion: Royal Navy assets in the Persian By Claire Mills Gulf 1. Historical presence: the Armilla Patrol The UK has maintained a permanent naval presence in the Gulf region since October 1980, when the Armilla Patrol was established to ensure the safety of British entitled merchant ships operating in the region during the Iran-Iraq conflict. Initially the Royal Navy’s presence was focused solely in the Gulf of Oman. However, as the conflict wore on both nations began attacking each other’s oil facilities and oil tankers bound for their respective ports, in what became known as the “tanker war” (1984-1988). Kuwaiti vessels carrying Iraqi oil were particularly susceptible to Iranian attack and foreign-flagged merchant vessels were often caught in the crossfire.1 In response to a number of incidents involving British registered vessels, in October 1986 the Royal Navy began accompanying British-registered vessels through the Straits of Hormuz and in the Persian Gulf. Later the UK’s Armilla Patrol contributed to the Multinational Interception Force (MIF), a naval contingent patrolling the Persian Gulf to enforce the UN-mandated trade embargo against Iraq, imposed after its invasion of Kuwait in August1990.2 In the aftermath of the 2003 Iraq conflict, Royal Navy vessels, deployed as part of the Armilla Patrol, were heavily committed to providing maritime security in the region, the protection of Iraq’s oil infrastructure and to assisting in the training of Iraqi sailors and marines. 1.1 Assets The Type 42 destroyer HMS Coventry was the first vessel to be deployed as part of the Armilla Patrol, followed by RFA Olwen.
[Show full text]
Ministry of Defence: Design and Procurement of Warships
NATIONAL AUDIT OFFICE Report by the Comptroller and Auditor General Ministry of Defence: Design and Procurement of Warships Ordered by the House of Commons to be printed 5 June 1985 LONDON HER MAJESTY’S STATIONERY OFFICE E3.30 net 423 This report is presented to the House of Commons in accordance with Section 9 of the National Audit Act, 1983. Gordon Downey Comljtroller and Auditor General National Audit Office 4 June 1985 Contents Ministry of Defence: Design and Procurement of Warships Pages Summary and conclusions l-5 Report Part 1: Background 6 Part 2: Division of Responsibilities for Warshipbuilding 7-8 Part 3: Effectiveness of MOD’s Design and Development Arrangements 9-12 Part 4: Performance of Warshipbuilders 13-15 Part 5: Negotiation of Warship Contracts 16-17 Glossary of abbreviations 18 Appendix Mr Levene’s recommendations on warship procurement 19 Ministry of Defence: Design and Procurement of Warships Summary and conclusions 1. This Report records the results of an examination by the National Audit Office (NAO) of the Ministry of Defence (MOD)‘s arrangements for design and procurement of warships. It covers the progress made in increasing warshipbuil- ders’ involvement in and responsibility for design; the difficulties encountered in design and development of new ships; and MOD’s influence on the performance and productivity of the warshipbuilders and the effect of the latter on the achieve- ment of value for money. These matters have all been the subject of earlier Reports by the Public Accounts Committee (PAC). I intend to provide PAC with further details to supplement this Report, on a confidential basis.
[Show full text]
Is a Naval Architect an Atypical Designer – Or Just a Hull Engineer?
IS A NAVAL ARCHITECT AN ATYPICAL DESIGNER – OR JUST A HULL ENGINEER? David Andrews1 ABSTRACT As the demands for future ships become ever greater, due to economic pressures to achieve “value for money” and due to assumptions of more precision in potential ship solutions, then the question to be addressed is whether the naval architectural profession is still best placed to lead in designing complex ships. Other disciplines might be seen to be more relevant in meeting specific ship demands, such as the marine engineer in achieving better fuel efficiency and greener solutions or the combat systems engineer for future naval vessels. Beyond these two disciplines the complexity of particularly naval ship design has led to the generic project management discipline of systems engineering being promoted as more appropriate than naval architecture as the lead discipline. Thus the naval architect becomes a mere “hull engineer” practicing the specific “naval architectural” sub-disciplines, instead of being “primes inter pares” in managing ship design and acquisition. Such a proposal arises both from a belief that the whole ship safety issues need the senior most naval architect’s main attention and that systems engineering rather than the naval architect’s design skills are best for the overall management of design and acquisition due to its agnosticism with regards to the cross disciplinary conflicts that arise in such a highly interactive multi-disciplinary exercise. This issue is explored by considering what are the essential engineering skills employed by a naval architect as the ship equivalent, for large constructional projects, of a terrestrial civil engineer and whether this is just “hull engineering” or something more like the ship equivalent of an architect for major constructions, such as airport termini.
[Show full text]
HMS Southampton
HMS Southampton HMS SoutHaMpton The replacement for the destroyers of the County-class, were much more compact and austere than their fore bearers. The primary on role of the Type 42s was to provide area air I defence for the ships they had to escort. With their long-range sensor fit they also could act as radar pickets, sailing ahead of a Task Group to act as its eyes and ears. The loss of HMS Sheffield and Coventry dem- Introduct onstrated, this latter role denied the ships supporting fire from accompanying warships and highlighted their vulnerability. 2 Warship 09 developMent In the 1960s the Royal Navy was still one On 14 February 1966, after a day long an all-gas turbine (COGOG) propul- of the premier carrier fleets in the world, meeting, the Cabinet decided to cancel sion system, using Rolls-Royce Olympus second only to the US Navy which was the plans for the construction of the new turbines for main drive and Tynes for in the process of building 80,000 tons carrier. The Labour government calculated cruising. aircraft carriers of the Kitty Hawk-class. that maintaining a carrier air group East of Although lacking Ikara, the ASW capabil- The increasing weight and size of modern Suez would be 60% more expensive than ity was greatly improved over previous jet fighters meant that a larger deck area as a land based airforce. Along with the ships by providing a hangared Lynx light was required for take offs and landings. cancellation went the proposed Type 82 helicopter (armed with torpedoes and Although the Royal Navy had come up destroyers designed to escort them.
[Show full text]
Ministry of Defence: Collaborative Projects
Report by the Comptroller and = Auditor General NATIONAL AUDIT OXICE Ministry of Defence: Collaborative Projects Ordered by the House of Commons to be printed 26 February 1991 .London: HMSO E8.95 net 247 This report has been prepared under Section 6 of the National Audit Act, 1983 for presentation to the House of Commons in accordance with Section 9 of the Act. John Bourn Comptroller and Auditor General National Audit Office 22 February 1991 The Comptroller and Auditor Generalis the head of the National Audit Office employing some 900 staff. He, and the NAO, are totally independent of Government. He certifies the accounts of all Government departments and a wide range of other public sector bodies: and he has statutory authority to report to Parliament on the economy, efficiency and effectiveness with which departments and other bodies use their rasourcas. MINISTRY OF ,,EFENCE: COLLABORATIVE PRO~CT.5 Contents Pages Summary and conclusions 1 Part 1: Background and scope of the National Audit Office study 6 Part 2: The Department’s consideration of collaboration 7 Part 3: Advantages and disadvantages of collaboration 13 Part 4: Central management of collaborative projects 19 Part 5: External audit arrangements 23 Glossary 26 Appendices 1. Collaborative projects involving the United Kingdom as at 1 March 1989 28 2. Background information on the projects examined by the National Audit Office 31 3. Structure and organisation of the Conference of National Armaments Directors and the Independent European Programme Group 52 4. SPY0 Howitzer 54 5. European Defence Industry Study - Independent European Programme Group Action Plan 56 MINISTRY OF DEFENCE: COLLABORATIVE PROJECTS Summary and conclusions Background 1.
[Show full text]
1 Introduction 1
Notes 1 Introduction 1. A debate exists whether a ‘Second Cold War’ did in fact break out or whether this merely a changing phase of the ongoing Cold War. This changing situation in East-West relations from the late 1970s onwards will henceforth, be referred to as the Second Cold War. See, for example, Fred Halliday, The Making of the Second Cold War (London: Verso Editions and NLB, second edition, 1986). 2. Private discussions. In 1979 only 2 per cent of the electorate thought defence was a major issue in the election. By 1983 this had risen to 38 per cent. Michael Heseltine, ‘The United Kingdom’s Strategic Interests and Priorities’, RUSI Journal, vol. 128, no. 4, December 1983, pp. 3–5, p. 3. The 1983 election campaign was noteworthy for the action of the previous Labour Prime Minister, James Callaghan, who took the unprecedented step of repudiating his own party’s defence policy; Ian Aitken, ‘Callaghan Wrecks Polaris Repairs’, Guardian, 26 May 1983; Peter M. Jones, ‘British Defence Policy: the Breakdown of the Inter-party Consensus’, Review of International Studies, vol. 13, no. 2, April 1987, pp. 111–31; Bruce George and Curt Pawlisch, ‘Defence and 1983 Election’, ADIU Report, vol. 5, no. 4, July/August 1983, p. 2; Michael Heseltine, Life in the Jungle: My Autobiography (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 2000), p. 250. 3. Peter Calvocoressi, ‘Deterrence, the Costs, the Issues, the Choices’, Sunday Times, 6 April 1980. 4. Nicholas J. Wheeler, ‘Perceptions of the Soviet Threat’, in British Security Policy: the Thatcher Years and the End of the Cold War, edited by Stuart Croft (London: HarperCollins Academic, 1991), p.
[Show full text]
HMS SHEFFIELD Which System As Well As the 4.5 Mk 8 Gun
SHEFFIELDS PAST commissioned on 28 February 1975. single shot firing. The Sheffield Class There then followed an extensive Following first-of-class trials period of first-of-class trials and SHEFFIELD was allocated to the 3rd Type 42 Destroyer evaluations which included hot Destroyer Squadron and served in weather trials in the Caribbean and North European waters until her year after the cruiser was force air defence and they were cold weather trials off Bear Island, first refit. This began in June 1979 at A sold, the order was placed armed with the Seadart Missile north of Norway. During this trials the end of a period of attachment for another HMS SHEFFIELD which System as well as the 4.5 Mk 8 gun. period HMS SHEFFIELD fired four to the NATO Standing Force was to be the name-ship of the Type Launched by Her Majesty the Sea Dart missiles on the Aberporth Atlantic. The refit was completed in 42 class of guided missile destroyers. Queen at Barrow on 10 June 1971 missile range in Cardigan Bay and November 198O and a year later Her prime purpose was to provide the second HMS SHEFFIELD was destroyed the target with her first after trials and work-up she 4th May 1982 deployed to the Indian Ocean as INVINCIBLE while their aircraft head of a Task Group to patrol the attacked the Port Stanley airfield on entrance to the Persian Gulf. that day and 4 May. While returning from this patrol, During the afternoon of 4 May, and immediately following a short the Task Force was attacked by land visit to Gibraltar, she took part in a based Argentine Navy strike aircraft First Flotilla exercise in the Gibraltar and the SHEFFIELD was hit by an areas in March 1982.
[Show full text]
Ministry of Defence Acronyms and Abbreviations
Acronym Long Title 1ACC No. 1 Air Control Centre 1SL First Sea Lord 200D Second OOD 200W Second 00W 2C Second Customer 2C (CL) Second Customer (Core Leadership) 2C (PM) Second Customer (Pivotal Management) 2CMG Customer 2 Management Group 2IC Second in Command 2Lt Second Lieutenant 2nd PUS Second Permanent Under Secretary of State 2SL Second Sea Lord 2SL/CNH Second Sea Lord Commander in Chief Naval Home Command 3GL Third Generation Language 3IC Third in Command 3PL Third Party Logistics 3PN Third Party Nationals 4C Co‐operation Co‐ordination Communication Control 4GL Fourth Generation Language A&A Alteration & Addition A&A Approval and Authorisation A&AEW Avionics And Air Electronic Warfare A&E Assurance and Evaluations A&ER Ammunition and Explosives Regulations A&F Assessment and Feedback A&RP Activity & Resource Planning A&SD Arms and Service Director A/AS Advanced/Advanced Supplementary A/D conv Analogue/ Digital Conversion A/G Air‐to‐Ground A/G/A Air Ground Air A/R As Required A/S Anti‐Submarine A/S or AS Anti Submarine A/WST Avionic/Weapons, Systems Trainer A3*G Acquisition 3‐Star Group A3I Accelerated Architecture Acquisition Initiative A3P Advanced Avionics Architectures and Packaging AA Acceptance Authority AA Active Adjunct AA Administering Authority AA Administrative Assistant AA Air Adviser AA Air Attache AA Air‐to‐Air AA Alternative Assumption AA Anti‐Aircraft AA Application Administrator AA Area Administrator AA Australian Army AAA Anti‐Aircraft Artillery AAA Automatic Anti‐Aircraft AAAD Airborne Anti‐Armour Defence Acronym
[Show full text]
Vice Admiral Guy Robinson OBE Chief of Staff Guy Robinson Joined the Royal Navy in 1986 As a Warfare Officer
Allied Command Transformation Office of the Chief of Staff Norfolk, Virginia | USA Vice Admiral Guy Robinson OBE Chief of Staff Guy Robinson joined the Royal Navy in 1986 as a warfare officer. His seagoing career has been primarily spent in frigates and destroyers, serving as a bridge watchkeeping officer, navigator and then Principal Warfare Officer. He has been fortunate to command three warships: the patrol vessel HMS GUERNSEY, the Type 42 Destroyer HMS EDINBURGH and the Type 45 Destroyer HMS DARING. In 2003, he commanded EDINBURGH during the combat phase of the 2nd Gulf War and was subsequently awarded a Mention-in-Despatches. In 2008 he operated from the Iraqi Khawr al Amaya offshore oil terminal as Commander Task Group 158.1, running operations in the Northern Arabian Gulf. In 2012, he took DARING on the first operational deployment of a Type 45 to the Middle East. From 2015 through 2016 he was the Deputy Commander of United Kingdom Maritime Forces, the Royal Navy’s high readiness battle staff. During that assignment he assumed duties as Commander of Combined Task Force 150, the counter-terrorism task force operating in the Indian Ocean. In his most recent command assignment (2017-21) he was Deputy Commander at Naval Striking and Support Forces NATO (STRIKFORNATO) based at Oeiras, Portugal; a deployable Joint battle staff whose primary role is the integration of high-end U.S. maritime capabilities into NATO operations. During assignments ashore, Vice Admiral Robinson has served in the UK’s Ministry of Defence (MoD), working as the financial programmer in the above water equipment capability area.
[Show full text]
A Study of the World's Naval Surface-To-Air Missile Defense Systems
Calhoun: The NPS Institutional Archive Theses and Dissertations Thesis Collection 1984 A study of the world's naval surface-to-air missile defense systems. Saraparung, Sukij http://hdl.handle.net/10945/19583 DUDLEY KNOX LIBRARY NAVAL POSTGRADUATE £ Z MONTEREY, CALIFORIJI ' 3 NAVAL POSTGRADUATE SCHOOL Monterey, California THESIS A STUDY OF THE WORLD'S NAVAL SURFACE--TO -AIR MISSILE DEFENSE SYSTEMS by Sukij Saraparung December 198 4 Thesis Ad visor: Robert E. Ball Approved for public release; distribution unlimited T223025 Unclassified SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE (Whan Data Ents READ INSTRUCTIONS REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE BEFORE COMPLETING FORM I. REPORT NUMBEI 2. GOVT ACCESSION NO 3. RECIPIENT'S CATALOG NUMBER 4. TITLE (and Subtitle) 5. TYPE OF REPORT 4 PERIOD COVEREO A Study of the World's Naval Master's Thesis; December 1984 Sur face-to-Air Missile Defense Systems 6. PERFORMING ORG. REPORT NUMBER 7. AUTHORCs; 8. CONTRACT OR GRANT NUMBERS Saraparung, Sukij 9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS Naval Postgraduate School Monterev, CA 9 394 3 II. CONTROLLING OFFICE NAME AND AODRESS 12. REPORT DATE Naval Postgraduate School December 19 8 4 13. NUMBER OF PAGES 9 3943 Monterey, CA 236 14. MONITORING AGENCY NAME 4 AOOHESS(lt different from Controlling Office) 15. SECURITY CLASS, (ot this report) Unclassified 16. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT (ol this Report) Approved for public release; distribution unlimited 17. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT (ol the abstract entered In Block 20, It different from Report) 18. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES 19. KEY WORDS fConlinue on reverse aide II necessary and Identity by block number) Shipborne Sur face-to-Air Missile (SAM) 20.
[Show full text]
Royal Navy Matters 2011
ROYAL NAVY MATTERS MATTERS NAVY ROYAL ROYAL NAVY BROADSHEET 2011 MATTERS BROADSHEET 2011 FINAL PROOF FINAL PROOF ROYAL NAVY MATTERS Editors © 2011. The entire contents of this publication are protected by copyright. Pauline Aquilina All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, Simon Michell stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means: electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without Editor-in-chief the prior permission of the publisher. The views and opinions expressed Colette Doyle by independent authors and contributors in this publication are provided in the writers’ personal capacities and are their sole responsibility. Their Chief sub-editor publication does not imply that they represent the views or opinions Barry Davies of the Royal Navy or Newsdesk Communications Ltd and must neither be regarded as constituting advice on any matter whatsoever, nor be Sub-editors interpreted as such. The reproduction of advertisements in this publication Clare Cronin does not in any way imply endorsement by the Royal Navy or Newsdesk Michael Davis Communications Ltd of products or services referred to therein. Art editors Jean-Philippe Stanway James White Designer Kylie Alder Production and distribution manager Karen Troman Published on behalf of the Royal Navy Sales director Ministry of Defence, Main Building, Martin Cousens Whitehall, London SW1A 2HB www.royalnavy.mod.uk Sales manager, defence Peter Barron Managing director Andrew Howard Publisher and chief executive Published
[Show full text]
Recycling of Type 42S Edinburgh, York and Gloucester
Recycling of Type 42s Edinburgh, York & Gloucester Disposal Services Authority Defence Equipment & Support Defence Equipment & Support Contents Executive Summary Background & General Particulars Introduction Competition Recycling of the Former Type 42 Destroyers Edinburgh, York & Gloucester Photographic Evidence Final Outturn Conclusion Executive Summary In 2013 an open competition for the disposal of Type 42 Batch 3 Destroyers HMS Edinburgh, York & Gloucester was undertaken and the Disposal Services Authority awarded preferred bidder status to the Turkish company LEYAL Ship Recycling Ltd whose formal proposal was to conduct the recycling of all these vessels at their dedicated ship dismantling facility in Aliaga, Turkey. The vessels were towed independently and the first vessel Ex-HMS Edinburgh left HMNB Portsmouth under tow on the 12 August 2015 followed by Ex-HMS York on the 19 August 2015 and finally Ex HMS Gloucester on the 22 September 2015. Ex-HMS Edinburgh was the first vessel to arrive at LEYAL Ship Recycling Ltd on the 7 September 2015 and she was fully recycled on 1st February 2016. Ex-HMS York arrived in Aliaga on the 9 September 2015 and was fully recycled on the 4 March 2016 and finally Ex-HMS Gloucester arrived in Aliaga on the 15 October 2015 and was fully recycled on the 7 January 2016. It took just 7 months to dismantle and recycle the 3 vessels with 96% of the vessels recycled. Ex-HMS Edinburgh was the first vessel to leave Portsmouth on the 12 Aug 2015 under the tow of tug Spartan. 1 Ex-HMS York leaving HMNB Portsmouth under the tow of Diavlos Pride on the 19 Aug 2015.
[Show full text]