Tanker War 2.0

[tomahawk6]

Both the US and Canada are exporters so higher prices would be good. but not good for Japan and Europe.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Meanwhile IRGC  release "drone" footage (with what looks to be a Huey 500 skid in it)  https://www.almasdarnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/t_video5877479203443574499.mp4?_=1

 

[Retired AF Guy]

Both the US and Canada are exporters so higher prices would be good. but not good for Japan and Europe.

Actually, after the US, Saudi Arabia is the second largest exporter of oil to Canada.

Last year [2018], Canadian companies spent $3.54 billion importing 6.4 million cubic metres of Saudi oil, up from 5.9 million cubic metres worth $2.5 billion in 2017, before the dispute started in August 2018.

In January 2019, for example, oil imports from the kingdom were 606,000 cubic metres, up from 559,000 cubic metres a year earlier. And although monthly imports gyrate significantly — a normal trend in the oil business, according to analysts — the long-term trend is unmistakable. 

"Over five years, imports from Saudi have increased," said David Hughes, a former research manager with the Geological Survey of Canada and president of Global Sustainability Research, a consultancy in Calgary. In January 2019, Saudi oil accounted for roughly 10 per cent of Canadian consumption, up from about eight per cent in 2017, he said.

Source:  Canada's oil imports from Saudi Arabia on the rise since 2014, trade figures show. 28 April 2019

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

Quite correct RAFG, as this table from the GoC shows:

https://www.neb-one.gc.ca/nrg/ntgrtd/mrkt/snpsht/2019/03-03mprtscrdl-eng.html

However, Canada is still, overall, a net exporter of oil, and about 75% of our actual consumption is locally sourced. So, making the loss of 18% of the last 25% of consumption (i.e. about 4.5% ) would not be a big deal, especially since we produce more than we consume to start with.

For instance, if you look at Quebec in the table I refer to, you can see that, eventhough overall consumption in Quebec rose a bit in the last few years, the oil imports have gone down in real terms, as has the percentage from the Kingdom. That's because the refineries here have greatly increased their consumption of Alberta and Newfoundland oil - but mostly Alberta's since it's the cheapest around.

Yet another way Quebec is sticking it's tongue out at Alberta, I guess.  ;D

 

[tomahawk6]

Video of Iranian commando's taking UK tanker.

https://www.foxnews.com/world/iran-uk-tanker-video-commando-rappelling

 

[CBH99]

Those were some serious environmental concerns they had...

 

[Good2Golf]

Video of Iranian commando's taking UK tanker.

https://www.foxnews.com/world/iran-uk-tanker-video-commando-rappelling

That 120’ fast rope would lead to some pretty hot hands by the time they reach the deck. Not sure why the IRG Mi-17 pilots were so high.  Good thing nobody lost their grip on the fast rope...they’d be a deck-pizza in a hurry.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

The RN tried to warn off the Iranians, but where 60 minutes away https://www.citynews1130.com/2019/07/21/uk-navy-heard-in-audio-trying-to-thwart-iran-ship-seizure/

 

[Colin Parkinson]

https://www.marinelink.com/news/strait-hormuz-ships-urged-alert-navies-468688?utm_source=MR-ENews-Weekdays-2019-07-23&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=MR-ENews

Shipping associations have called on ship owners to inform Britain's navy of their movements before sailing into the Middle East Gulf and Strait of Hormuz because of the escalating international crisis in the region.

About a fifth of the world's oil passes through the Strait of Hormuz and shipping companies are already deploying more unarmed security guards as an extra safeguard.

However, in a joint note issued by the leading trade associations on Monday, ship captains were requested to register with the Royal Navy's liaison body, the United Kingdom Marine Trade Operations, and to provide their transit plans 24 to 48 hours before entering the region.

Details requested included the nationalities of crew members and any ship speed constraints.

The information provided would be passed onto the U.S. Navy and other naval forces involved in efforts to create a United States-led multinational security initiative known as Operation Sentinel. Washington says the plan is to increase surveillance of and security in key waterways in the Middle East.

"While the United States has committed to supporting this initiative, contributions and leadership from regional and international partners will be required," shipping association BIMCO said in a note accompanying the advisory.

UK Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt told parliament on Monday that Britain will seek to put together a European-led maritime protection mission to ensure safe shipping through the Strait of Hormuz after Iran seized a British-flagged vessel in what London said was an act of "state piracy".

One tanker owner said: "We will time transits for daylight hours and proceed at maximum speed."

(Reporting by Jonathan Saul and Julia Payne Editing by David Goodman)

 

[FJAG]

I briefly said to myself that this situation calls for a larger fleet of small fast patrol boats that would be able to provide better coverage as ship escorts.

Then I asked myself; maybe there's a role here for some of our MCDVs here?

Then I took a look at the MCDVs speed and armaments and said to myself; Why the hell didn't we build cheaper, smaller, faster, more capable training/operations vessels in the first place (like the Iranians did)?

I guess in the long run it doesn't matter. We're screwed either way. Militarily the Iranians have the upper hand in this both tactically and strategically.

:brickwall:

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Your looking more to something like this operating from friendly bases along the route https://products.damen.com/en/ranges/sigma-fast-attack

 

[tomahawk6]

Or like the USN's Cyclone class at 178 ft, 35knots,2 25mm guns and a mix of 7.62mm and MK19's and stinger SAM's.

https://www.wearethemighty.com/smallest-navy-ship-cyclone-class

 

[FJAG]

Your looking more to something like this operating from friendly bases along the route https://products.damen.com/en/ranges/sigma-fast-attack

More  a mix with one or more of something with these capabilities:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flyvefisken-class_patrol_vessel

or these:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamina-class_missile_boat

Supplemented by a half dozen or more with something like these:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shaldag-class_patrol_boat

The issue here is small (300-400 tonnes for the larger, 100 tonnes for the smaller), fast (30 knts min) with small crews (15-40) and advanced weapon systems that would be a deterrent to someone who wants to mix with them or will eat their lunch if they do.

I'm also mindful of the narrowness of this channel and the vulnerability to shore based anti-ship missiles which requires an overarching joint force with close in air and missile support which could strike back against any active shore-based instillation.

As I said above. Currently the tactical and strategic advantage belongs to Iran. If they are going to start acting out in the face of current deterrent forces then there may be a need to step up the game or be prepared to abandon the strait as a shipping route.

:cheers:

 

[NavyShooter]

The US can re-activate the Pegasus class, and we'll re-develop our Bras d'Or class, with a 25mm on the foc'sle...good to go?

 

[Underway]

I briefly said to myself that this situation calls for a larger fleet of small fast patrol boats that would be able to provide better coverage as ship escorts.

Then I asked myself; maybe there's a role here for some of our MCDVs here?

Then I took a look at the MCDVs speed and armaments and said to myself; Why the hell didn't we build cheaper, smaller, faster, more capable training/operations vessels in the first place (like the Iranians did)?

I guess in the long run it doesn't matter. We're screwed either way. Militarily the Iranians have the upper hand in this both tactically and strategically.

:brickwall:

The role near Iran is for frigates at a minimum.  Proper survivability, seakeeping, endurance etc...  Questions that need to be answered before you build/send in smaller littoral combat ship types.

Do we have bases to operate from near Iran?  Do we have a strategic imperative (aside from alliance virtue signaling) to be anywhere near Iran?  Should we pay for bases near Iran, or even work with allies(?) like Saudi Arabia?  Would smaller ships even be remotely survivable against Iran (ie: would Cdn public be willing to risk sailors/ships in smaller less survivable craft)?

Answer to all these questions is a resounding no.  In fact I would argue that it's in our best strategic interest to have friction in the middle east.  Keeps any one power from getting a toehold, keeps oil prices high, causes Europe to look for other oil sources.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

I have to disagree, Frigates are almost Capital ships for most navies now and your putting them into tight confines often within range of Anti-ship missiles. The main  area of coverage is roughly 46,000 square KM. Sounds big but most of it has a likely friendly port to operate from and anywhere from 50-150 km wide. This is a place for Corvettes and patrol boats, with smaller subs. The Frigates can operate on the approaches and Western half. But the Straits of Hormuz are the realm of smaller craft.

Now I wonder if the US will "Lend-Lease" the LCS to the RN?

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

LCS are frigate size vessels.

You want both speed, stealth and survivability in that environment? Here's the top dog, IMHO.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e0/Hamina-luokka_Hanko.JPG

 

[MilEME09]

Do we have bases to operate from near Iran? à

I would only assume we would use the home ports of the US Fifth or Sixth fleets to operate near Iran as they are in Bahrain and Italy respectively.

 

[FJAG]

I have to admit that I'm not a sailor nor have studied naval warfare to any degree (I'm somewhat Army-centric).

But.

If your enemy is seizing or sabotaging civilian ships that you need to protect and if we have only a few capital ships in the area that can't cover everything, then logic demands that they be augmented by lighter, faster patrol vessels that have a fighting capability and have smaller crews.

A Canadian Frigate right now has a complement of 225 and a speed of 30 knots. For that many personnel you could man 15 Shaldag-class patrol boats capable of 50 knot bursts.

It's simple math to up your presence for deterrence and intercept capability. For the heavy lifting there is still a US carrier group and the rest of the Combined Maritime Forces.

That said, the original question in my mind arising out of all this was, what use are the MCDVs to us these days anyway? It's a thousand tonne boat with a speed of 15 knots and no weapons to speak of.

Oh, well. Back to being cynical about the shortcomings of the Army.

:cheers:

 

[Cloud Cover]

Lots of oil in Alberta. Just sayin'...