Where, in the Royal Air Force inventory, are the long-range transport aircraft equivalent to our C-5s, C-17s and C-141s? There aren’t any. I don’t even see any C-130s in the inventory. How would the Brits propose to keep their ground and air forces supplied without our help?

Actually, while I didn’t list them specifically (the post was getting rather long as it was), the RAF flies the following transport, cargo, and mid-air refueling aircraft:

C-17A Globemaster
99 Squadron RAF Brize Norton

Hercules C1 / C3 (K)
47 Squadron RAF Lyneham
70 Squadron RAF Lyneham

Hercules C4 / C5 (J)
XXIV Squadron RAF Lyneham
30 Squadron RAF Lyneham

L-1011 Tristar
216 Squadron RAF Brize Norton

VC10
101 Squadron RAF Brize Norton

I did not list the Royal Fleet Auxiliary ships that are used for replenishment at sea. The most recent addition to the RN’s fleet is the Wave Ruler (A390), commissioned in 2003.

The RN also hires commercial vessels when needed for replenishment and troop transport. This is what they did during the Falklands War.

The Royal Navy is the second largest navy today (after ours) in terms of combatants. They are capable of blue water operations anywhere the world.

I listed only the RN’s combatants for brevity. The RN has been operating in the Persian and Arabian Gulfs for decades and has a robust supply chain that is anchored by their base Diego Garcia as well.

Oh…would that put us in breach of the Geneva convention?

“Britain sends note to Iran”

Britain has now unleashed a new weapon against Iran … the NOTE! And we all know how Iran fears the use of the NOTE!!!!!

Maybe soon Blair will unleash the Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch!

If anyone is interested, I’ve got a LOT of experience leading Boarding teams….

Anyone up for a little Buccaneer action on an Iranian Oil Tanker???

Would be VERY profitable…

Romeo13 on March 31, 2007 at 12:11 PM

You’ve reminded me generally of Mark Steyn’s comment in America Alone about men with Rolodexes, and of my own opinion that “counter-terrorism” has at least two meanings.

I’d hate to be in Blair’s shoes right now. Every choice carries with it the sting of national humiliation.

Spurius Ligustinus on March 31, 2007 at 10:37 AM

On the contrary, it seems the sudden destruction of Tehran, at any time in the last 28 years, would have enhanced the reputation of the country whose rulers caused it. In 1979, it might have been swatting a fly with a cannon; in that case, it would have enhanced that country’s reputation for swatting flies with cannons, and flies would have become very, very careful.

An op-ed writer at the Daily Telegraph…: “I start to wonder whether it might not be time for us to get as nasty with other countries as they do with us.”

One can do something “as nasty,” less so, or more so. If one’s goal is to conform to an opinion about fairness, then it seems one will choose to do something “as nasty.” But if one’s goal is to make it impossible for the enemy rulers to go on doing nasty things, then it seems one will do something sure to stop them. In such a case, comparisons of nastiness are irrelevant and time spent thinking about them is wasted, for a practical man.

If anyone is interested, I’ve got a LOT of experience leading Boarding teams….

Anyone up for a little Buccaneer action on an Iranian Oil Tanker???

Would be VERY profitable…

WHEREAS the Islamic Republic of Iran has falsely claimed that the Coalition forces were in its territorial waters, and violated the Geneva Conventions in its treatment of those kidnapped servicemen and woman,

WHEREAS these acts are but the latest in a series of breaches of the rights of Coalition members, commencing with the seizure of the US Embassy in Tehran, which is sovereign US territory, which constitute acts of war

THERFORE we consider that a State of War exists between the Islamic Republic of Iran and the Coalition members (the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and the United States of America).

EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY, all vessels of the Islamic Republic of Iran are subject to seizure, even within its territorial waters, by Coalition forces. No shipping under any flag will be allowed into or out of Iran. The UK Prime Minister and the US President may direct their forces to take additional actions, which may or may not be publicised.

This condition will continue until the Islamic Republic of Iran formally renounces their acts against Coalition members, and returns our captured servicemen and women unharmed.

New York [CBB] – As tensions continue to mount over the Iranian capture of 15 British sailors and marines, Prime Minister Tony Blair announced the British had escalated the situation. At 6:45 AM [EST] a squadron of British and US lawyers descended on t…

Phone rings… a hand comes in and pushes the Speaker phone button…

“George here”….

“Tony here George old freind… just wanted to ring you up and see if I could borrow a couple of squadrons of F-22s…”

Perhaps the Iranians are indeed deserving of some “daddy time” from the Brits, but it won’t be forthcoming without a lot of help from “uncle” – Uncle Sam, that is.

Looking over Georgej’s inventory of the British Navy and Air Force, one thing stood out right away: short legs. Those familiar with military logistics know what that means: the absence of any kind of supply train necessary to independently sustain those ships and aircraft far from home over a prolonged period of time.

Wherever the US Navy goes, the dedicated fast supply ships go. Look over the composition of any of our carrier task groups, and you’ll find one attached. These ships provide the fuel, ammunition, spare parts and other essentials necessary to maintain a long deployment far from friendly base facilities.

Where are the British equivalents?

Where, in the Royal Air Force inventory, are the long-range transport aircraft equivalent to our C-5s, C-17s and C-141s? There aren’t any. I don’t even see any C-130s in the inventory. How would the Brits propose to keep their ground and air forces supplied without our help?

Bottom line is that the Brits, like the rest of our NATO allies, have pared down their military to little more than a constabulary designed for local defense.

- The Royal Navy is structured to operate in defense of Europe; it’s not a power projection force. This is not Horatio Nelson’s Royal Navy, or the Grand Fleet of Admiral Jellicoe, or the Royal Navy of WWII. It’s a pitiful shadow of its former glory. Its ships, which increasingly suffer from poor maintenance, commonly leave port with undermanned crews. Indeed, Blair’s most recent defense budget proposal would cut the Royal Navy in half from it’s present already inadequate size.

They’re not serious international players anymore. Like the French and the Russians, the only reason they still sit at the grownups’ table is because they have some SSBNs. But will they use them? Please.

- The Royal Air Force is also structured to support NATO in Europe; it has no long range strategic or transport aircraft (save for a handful of ancient Nimrod maritime patrol planes), only tactical ones. It, too, is slated for further cutbacks.

The direct consequence is that the Brits can’t independently maintain more than a symbolic forward deployment without the US providing the heavy lifting when it comes to the logistics. It’s been this way for more than a decade now, closer to two decades.

The indirect consequence for Tony Blair today is that if he’s thinking about a military option against the Iranians, he’ll have to take us in with him – or the military option is off the table for sheer lack of capability. Question becomes, will he do this when there are no American hostages involved? When the US House of Representatives won’t even consider a resolution in support of Britain?

The Iranians understand the Brits’ limitations, too. That’s why they’re adamant about resolving this as a “bilateral” matter, because they know that’ll put the Brits into a position of weakness by removing any meaningful military option from consideration.

This is what it means to be a second-rate power. Thugocracies like the Iranians can push you around when you’re playing on their home turf, and you don’t have the means to push back without having to ask for help.

I’d hate to be in Blair’s shoes right now. Every choice carries with it the sting of national humiliation.

The code you cite was approved 1955. The Pueblo was captured in 1968.

rockhauler on March 30, 2007 at 7:25 PM

And was taught to me in Boot Camp in San Diego in 1979.

Its also essentialy the code of conduct I was taught in SERE school.

People do break under torture, and the UCMJ was changed to reflect that, BUT, that does not mean you should not resist. That does NOT mean you cooperate.

Prime Minister Tony Blair is under increasing pressure to act more forcefully after a leading British newspaper slammed the early response to the Iranian seizure as “pusillanimous.”

Earlier rather than later that is.

I don’t think Iran is attempting to precipitate an attack but I do believe they are trying to get just as close as they can get to that line without crossing it to jack the price of oil up.

They have been quite successful at building their terrorist wings all across the west. All they need is a pretext to use the people already in place. That would be my suspicion, anyway.

There is method to this madness.

Today the Army of the Guardians of the Islamic Revolution — known in Farsi as the Sepah-e Pasdaran and in English as the Revolutionary Guard — is a mafia-like organization with a corrupting influence on Iran’s army, police, media, industries, judiciary and government. It is imperative that every effort now be made to contain the Revolutionary Guard’s powers, because its political and economic adventurism will ultimately lead to a serious crisis, not just in Iran but also across the Middle East.

The country that brought you Admiral Lord Nelson, The Duke of Wellington, the RAF pilots, the Knights of the Round Table is now exhibiting the rebirth of a Neville Chamberlain-like appeasement policy. ‘Peace in our time.’ Chamberlain declared just be…