UK Defence Forum

RichardIC wrote:Brexidiots who are constantly whining about Europeans stealing our fish

Both are wrong

Repulse wrote:Both are wrong

RichardIC wrote: should look over their shoulder and see where the real danger is

Quite. Goes for fishing, immigration and many other things

RichardIC wrote:How about (with current and anticipated resources) “It Can’t”.

Exactly. The Chinese distant water trawler fleet is colossal and they don't give a damn about ecology and go where they want. They're already working their way up the west.coast of Africa heading towards the North Atlantic.

This is the global reality that completely seems to have bypassed the Brexidiots who are constantly whining about Europeans stealing our fish.

They should look over their shoulder and see where the real danger is coming from.[/quote]

I agree if it to make any difference MHG will have to back it up with say 2 type 31's and a Wave class tanker back on AP-S

So fisheries protection is now a navy task? a few weeks ago we were being told it certainly isn’t or was that just because it was only in UK home waters.

No we were not. Some people seem to think that it should not be a tasking for the RN. Perhaps they also think that food is not essential for our survival. Do not forget that where a country’s commercial shipping (including fishing vessels) goes, then it is far from unlikely for that country’s warships to follow.

Scimitar54 wrote:it is far from unlikely for that country’s warships to follow.

Any PLAN warships spotted in the Gulf of Guinea yet
- I thought they were going to invade via the northern route... that will be some time off still

SW1 wrote:So fisheries protection is now a navy task? a few weeks ago we were being told it certainly isn’t or was that just because it was only in UK home waters.

In this case yes as only a navy officer can make an arrest in open sea. Plus this would be one of a number of jobs for Type 31 on AP-S also I feel fisheries should be part of the RN

Some considerations:

1: If UK is to do some EEZ/Fishery patrol, St Helena and Ascension islands have their own air-ports and provide very good air cover. So River B1 or B2 is good enough. On the other hand, Tristan da Cunha lacks air-base. Because all three regions even lacks a usable port (St Helena has recently build one small port), short-range vessels are of little use. Impossible to form a local fishery protection squadron there.

2: I do not think T31 will be needed. It is too much a high standard. No need for any of its armament, any of its damage control, nor good radar kits.

One possibility is so-call River B3. To build "6th" hull replacing the crane and funnel with a dual funnel and a central hangar. This will provide a patrol with air-cover even in Tristan da Cunha district. One hull will be enough.

If we abandon the idea of air-cover, a single River B2 to cover all islands, Ascension, St. Helena, and Tristan da Cunha will be a good starter. As distance to Falkland island is not much different, sending HMS Forth "sometimes" to Tristan da Cunha may be another candidate, while St Helena and Ascension may need another one.

Another possibility is a PSV-converted (or PSV-chartered) patrol vessel as "a Mid-Atlantic Patrol ship". Slow but sea worthy. May or may not carry a helicopter. It will also work as a supply ship for the remote island.

3: Anyway, St Helena and Ascension islands are small, and Tristan da Cunha is very very tiny in their population. Infrastructure of the latter is "almost nothing". So, even if UK want to "patrol" the area, its effort shall be minimal.

I don't think the South Atlantic is the place to be bobbing around like a cork on a sub 100 meter ship for me the type 31 is perfect ship with its size and range to cover the area you point out crew changes could take place in Ascension every 2 months

So what ido you think that the F.I. Patrol ship (HMS Forth) is doing then?

donald_of_tokyo wrote:1: If UK is to do some EEZ/Fishery patrol, St Helena and Ascension islands have their own air-ports and provide very good air cover. So River B1 or B2 is good enough. On the other hand, Tristan da Cunha lacks air-base. Because all three regions even lacks a usable port (St Helena has recently build one small port), short-range vessels are of little use. Impossible to form a local fishery protection squadron there.

2: I do not think T31 will be needed. It is too much a high standard. No need for any of its armament, any of its damage control, nor good radar kits.

One possibility is so-call River B3. To build "6th" hull replacing the crane and funnel with a dual funnel and a central hangar. This will provide a patrol with air-cover even in Tristan da Cunha district. One hull will be enough.

If we abandon the idea of air-cover, a single River B2 to cover all islands, Ascension, St. Helena, and Tristan da Cunha will be a good starter. As distance to Falkland island is not much different, sending HMS Forth "sometimes" to Tristan da Cunha may be another candidate, while St Helena and Ascension may need another one.

Another possibility is a PSV-converted (or PSV-chartered) patrol vessel as "a Mid-Atlantic Patrol ship". Slow but sea worthy. May or may not carry a helicopter. It will also work as a supply ship for the remote island.

3: Anyway, St Helena and Ascension islands are small, and Tristan da Cunha is very very tiny in their population. Infrastructure of the latter is "almost nothing". So, even if UK want to "patrol" the area, its effort shall be minimal.

Tempest414 wrote:I don't think the South Atlantic is the place to be bobbing around like a cork on a sub 100 meter ship for me the type 31 is perfect ship with its size and range to cover the area you point out crew changes could take place in Ascension every 2 months

None of this is going to happen. When Chinese trawlers turn up they do so in multiples of 100, literally. They switch off AIS, don't co-operate with local law enforcement and are extremely aggressive towards anyone who attempts to interfere. One of anything isn't going to do anything apart from waste fuel and energy.

RichardIC wrote:

donald_of_tokyo wrote:1: If UK is to do some EEZ/Fishery patrol, St Helena and Ascension islands have their own air-ports and provide very good air cover. So River B1 or B2 is good enough. On the other hand, Tristan da Cunha lacks air-base. Because all three regions even lacks a usable port (St Helena has recently build one small port), short-range vessels are of little use. Impossible to form a local fishery protection squadron there.

2: I do not think T31 will be needed. It is too much a high standard. No need for any of its armament, any of its damage control, nor good radar kits.

One possibility is so-call River B3. To build "6th" hull replacing the crane and funnel with a dual funnel and a central hangar. This will provide a patrol with air-cover even in Tristan da Cunha district. One hull will be enough.

If we abandon the idea of air-cover, a single River B2 to cover all islands, Ascension, St. Helena, and Tristan da Cunha will be a good starter. As distance to Falkland island is not much different, sending HMS Forth "sometimes" to Tristan da Cunha may be another candidate, while St Helena and Ascension may need another one.

Another possibility is a PSV-converted (or PSV-chartered) patrol vessel as "a Mid-Atlantic Patrol ship". Slow but sea worthy. May or may not carry a helicopter. It will also work as a supply ship for the remote island.

3: Anyway, St Helena and Ascension islands are small, and Tristan da Cunha is very very tiny in their population. Infrastructure of the latter is "almost nothing". So, even if UK want to "patrol" the area, its effort shall be minimal.

Tempest414 wrote:I don't think the South Atlantic is the place to be bobbing around like a cork on a sub 100 meter ship for me the type 31 is perfect ship with its size and range to cover the area you point out crew changes could take place in Ascension every 2 months

None of this is going to happen. When Chinese trawlers turn up they do so in multiples of 100, literally. They switch off AIS, don't co-operate with local law enforcement and are extremely aggressive towards anyone who attempts to interfere. One of anything isn't going to do anything apart from waste fuel and energy.

This is very true and becoming more so as China themselves become more daring, it was only a few weeks back that the S.Korean coast guard had to open fire on Chinese finish vessels to make things clear.

Jake1992 wrote:it was only a few weeks back that the S.Korean coast guard had to open fire

Interesting; do you have a link?

One reason for the Chinese CG vessels being destroyer size is that they don't need to open fire; rather push&shove

ArmChairCivvy wrote:

Jake1992 wrote:it was only a few weeks back that the S.Korean coast guard had to open fire

Interesting; do you have a link?

One reason for the Chinese CG vessels being destroyer size is that they don't need to open fire; rather push&shove

Unfortunately I don’t it was reading the above that jogged my memory of reading about this. If I remember right it was a post by UKDJ but can’t be sure.

Its just another reason why the Atlantic region needs to be the main focus of our attention.

Not only that it highlights the importance on maritime security and a role which suits the the river 2 opv. With patrols down the west coast of Africa from
Potentially Gibraltar and out of the falklands, not to mention from the Caribbean. From these three locations they can be used to counter piracy and terror actors, drug and people smuggling, support for security of regional off shore infrastructure and illegal fishing and maritime practices. If Ecuador can face off the Chinese fishing fleet I’m sure we can too.

RichardIC wrote:

Scimitar54 wrote:I do not suppose that I am alone in wondering, ust exactly how is it proposed that this area will be protected.

It won't be. It's a box-ticking exercise. The UK Government has "exceeded its target". Job done. It should also be protecting the marine environment around the UK. But it's already "exceeded its target". So it won't.

Caribbean wrote:The Pew Trust and the Bertarelli Foundation have volunteered to assist the local people with monitoring technology

You can monitor until you're blue in the face. Without enforcement it's worthless. And there won't be any.

Except the UK has set up plenty of Marine Protected Areas around the UK, and does both monitor and enforce them.

PS the EU's CFP is a "real danger" since the EU consistently, knowingly, sets quotas above the levels that independent fisheries scientists advise as being sustainable levels

Tempest414 wrote:I don't think the South Atlantic is the place to be bobbing around like a cork on a sub 100 meter ship for me the type 31 is perfect ship with its size and range to cover the area you point out crew changes could take place in Ascension every 2 months

May be, may be not. I understand "90m length" is a standard for a ship who can go and stay everywhere. 110+m is for a ship to operate helicopter efficiently. So, yes, for the proposed River B3 (B2 with a hangar), 90m length will not be enough. But for operation under land air cover, it is enough. Dutch Holland class like OPV will be the best solution, I agree.

To station a T31 on theater, you need 3 hulls. Crew rotation will help increase the duration of a single deployment, but high maintenance load of a patrol frigate will anyway require many days at port. Simplicity of OPV prevails here, needing much less maintenance.

Three T31 needs 300 sailers. A River B2 OPV with "x1.5" crew needs ~70. In short, 3 T31 (x1 manned) equates to 4 or 5 River B2 (x1.5 manned) (or ~7 River B2 "x1 manned"). So, at least 3 OPVs can be operating in the region, compared to only one T31. This is why I think River B2 is better there (In reality, a T31 will be there only "a 1/3 of a year", while at least 1 River B2 will be "always" there).

RichardIC wrote: None of this is going to happen. When Chinese trawlers turn up they do so in multiples of 100, literally. They switch off AIS, don't co-operate with local law enforcement and are extremely aggressive towards anyone who attempts to interfere. One of anything isn't going to do anything apart from waste fuel and energy.

Interesting, but it does not mean you need to tackle all fishery boats out of the zone. The trawlers are there to earn money, not for fun. Make it too expensive to do it. This is the aim of Fishery protection patrol.

If it is several trawlers, capture one of them and cast huge penalty charge, amounting to 10 times the income for them. It will swell out all of their profit, and the owner will never visit there. If it is hundreds of trawlers NOT following EEZ authority, declare it is invasion and start sinking one of them. All the crew of the trawler fleet will ask for doubling or tripling their fee, and then again, the owner will never visit there.

Majority of EEZ/Fishery patrol tasks are not to stop 100% of illegal activities, but to make it unaffordable.

donald_of_tokyo wrote:If it is several trawlers, capture one of them and cast huge penalty charge, amounting to 10 times the income for them. It will swell out all of their profit, and the owner will never visit there. If it is hundreds of trawlers NOT following EEZ authority, declare it is invasion and start sinking one of them. All the crew of the trawler fleet will ask for doubling or tripling their fee, and then again, the owner will never visit there.

Sorry Donald, sinking fishing vessels is potentially murder and the crew are entirely expendable. In the case of Chinese boats fishing off the coast of West Africa the crew are often locally hired and appallingly paid and treated. They take jobs to survive.

They are not the problem, it's the company owners safely back in China that are the problem. And the Chinese state.

China was supposed to limit it distant fishing fleet to 3,000 vessels (by contrast the EU and US each have under 300). In fact no-one knows how many there are, but estimates are in the 12-17,000 range. So you are going to need to sink an awful lot to make any kind of impact.

Add to that, in the South China Sea at least, illegal fishing vessels often have armed escorts.

RichardIC wrote:Sorry Donald, sinking fishing vessels is potentially murder and the crew are entirely expendable. In the case of Chinese boats fishing off the coast of West Africa the crew are often locally hired and appallingly paid and treated. They take jobs to survive.

Sure. Many of the sinking is done AFTER evacuating/arresting the crew. It is the penalty which is the most important. Losing ships, rising fee, put penalty. Continue, and on and on.

With increased cost and losing profit, the company owners will just cease doing it. This is what I mean.

You do not need to sink the 12000 trawlers, just make it unaffordable.

Add to that, in the South China Sea at least, illegal fishing vessels often have armed escorts.

In that case, you can sink it. It is not a murder anymore, just self defense of the law enforcing side. Some coast guards actually did it.

donald_of_tokyo wrote:Sure. Many of the sinking is done AFTER evacuating/arresting the crew. It is the penalty which is the most important. Losing ships, rising fee, put penalty. Continue, and on and on.

Donald, they won't pay penalties.

donald_of_tokyo wrote:In that case, you can sink it. It is not a murder anymore, just self defense of the law enforcing side. Some coast guards actually did it.

Japan is currently on the receiving end of this kind of aggression. Is Japan sinking Chinese vessels yet?

An Argentine Coast Guard ship sank a Chinese vessel in 2016, but only after the fishing vessel tried to ram it.

The RN has experience of a fishing dispute where ramming was used as a deliberate tactic by the other side. It wasn't a happy experience.

And how do you arrest the crew of a vessel that is prepared to ram you without putting the lives of both crews at risk?

RichardIC wrote:Donald, they won't pay penalties.

Good point. Yes it is the international collaboration needed here. And anyway, sinking trawlers, rising employment fee is just doing good. Much better than doing nothing.

Japan is currently on the receiving end of this kind of aggression. Is Japan sinking Chinese vessels yet?

Good point again. But the big difference is, Japan has large coast guard, defending EEZ near our own homeland. We do not forefront hundreds of trawlers yet, around our mainland EEZ. For these trawlers, it is not "sometimes" visit from our cutters, but "frequent interruption" from numbers of cutters. So they try avoiding it. It is like UK to patrol North Sea. Are Chinese trawlers prevailing there?

In distant region (far south of our EEZ), it is not the case. And we are trying to increase cutters to be sent there.

I think it is the same. UK can "do something" on mid-Atlantic by sending an OPV.

As you said, sending an OPV will never completely stop it. Illegal fishing will NEVER disappear. But by such actions, it can be suppressed. This is my only point.

PS And we have sunk North Korean fast boats. They did it.

Donald, I'm glad Japan is holding its own.

But you're still doubling down and trying to pretend that a growing global economic and environmental crisis can be solved simply and easily.

It can’t, but you have to start somewhere. It is “our” fault that it has come to this. If we still had the presence that we used to have AND the will to use it, we would not now be facing a mountain of this height to climb.