"The Jewel in the Naval Crown" - Quick Thoughts on the HMS DIAMOND incident

 

The Royal Navy has joined with international partners including France and the USA in deploying warships to combat the growing threat of Houthi led maritime terrorism in the Southern Red Sea. Over the weekend, HMS DIAMOND, a Type 45 destroyer made history as being the first of her class to fire missiles in anger, engaging and destroying a drone targeting merchant shipping. This engagement has caused both interest and debate by both media and ‘armchair admirals’, who have become overnight experts in missile engagements in conflict zones.

The facts of the case publicly known are limited – we know that there has been a number of drones and missiles fired by Houthi militia at merchant ships in the Bab-al-Mandab and wider Southern Red Sea, probably coming from Yemen using Iranian provided technology. The Iranians have backed the Houthi for about a decade, helping support them during the ongoing conflicts in Yemens complex conflicts as well as wider conflict with Saudi Arabia. Over the last decade the risks to shipping have increased as anti-ship missiles, mines and drones have been deployed or used in this area, which has posed a real risk to shipping. The Royal Navy, and other navies has previously deployed warships to escort merchant vessel in the region, providing essential cover against the possibility of incoming missiles. For example HMS DARING was awarded the GSM for operations in the region a few years ago in a very high threat environment.  

HMS DIAMOND - UK MOD © Crown copyright 2023

Tensions have increased in recent months as a result of the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians, which in turn has seen Iran fight a wider conflict by proxy through third parties. In this case using their links in Yemen to both fire missiles at Israel and also hold the maritime straits at risk through a combination of piracy, anti-ship missiles and drone attacks.  These attacks are continuing as part of efforts to force Israel to end its ongoing conflict in Gaza, essentially hoping that global pressure and concern over disruption to shipping will force international pressure on the Israelis to end the conflict.

The reason this matters is because in terms of global ‘critical nodes’ the Southern Red Sea (SRS) and the Bab-al-Mendab Strait is a major waterway for maritime shipping. All vessels using the Suez Canal as a shortcut on their journey to/from Europe and Asia will sail these waters, which are barely 18 miles wide at their narrowest. In maritime terms, sending very large vessels with limited ability to manoeuvre and no self-defences to speak of through this space is very high risk.  The only alternative to sailing this route is to instead sail via southern Africa, a voyage that adds weeks onto any journey and while far lower risk, will cost more in terms of fuel and disruption to global supply chains. Although over time this can be adapted, the risk is that in the short term the global merchant shipping industry will struggle to reposition ships and routes to avoid Suez. The impact could be catastrophic on global economies, particularly Egypt, whose national economy is highly dependent on revenues from the Canal.                                                                                                                

It is for this reason that western navies have been operating in the region, trying to escort and defend merchant vessels from attack and reassure companies and marine insurance providers that the risk is manageable. To date the naval presence has been hard worked, managing multiple incidents and shooting down drones and missiles aplenty. In the margins of the ongoing Gaza conflict there has been relatively little attention paid to this area, but it has become the hub of some of the most intense maritime conflict in decades, with allied warships engaged on a near daily basis.

For the UK and Royal Navy there are several implications of the going conflict. For starters, it is a good reminder of the value of maritime power and the speed of response. HMS DIAMOND has spent much of this year engaged as the AAW escort for HMS QUEEN ELIZABETH, and deployed at short notice after a return from operations in the Baltic. To go from defence diplomacy with NATO to firing AA missiles in the Southern Red Sea in a matter of weeks is testament to the agility of maritime power and the flexibility of the crew in adapting to a new mission quickly – a reminder too of the importance of the training pipeline like FOST that has helped produce crews able to take on this sort of mission.

Secondly it is a good reminder of the reassurance value of warships in protecting merchant vessels – a function that is as old as navies themselves. Wherever merchant ships find danger, they will look to navies to support them. The Royal Navy plays a critical role, alongside friends of reassuring these ships and helping them sail safely in riskier locations – a mission that is crucial for both stability and global economic security. The sooner shipping companies feel reassured that they can sail again in this space, the more limited the disruption to the wider economy.

Many commentators have argued that using an expensive missile like Sea Viper to shoot down a drone was a mistake, being both costly and when other systems were available. These people are misguided fools.  This may sound blunt but it is also true. Unless you were on the ship, privy to the full operations picture and understanding what the threat was, how best to respond to it, the potential impact if the drone hit the target and the lives that may be lost, then you do not know enough to comment on whether it was the right course of action. Ultimately the CO, and the crew, took the right decisions for the mission they were involved in. There is something deeply unseemly about never served armchair admirals whose sole exposure to salt water is opening cans of tinned vegetables getting angry that missile X was used, not missile Y. Very few people are in possession of the facts, and the only thing we can be certain of is that if DIAMOND had not fired her Sea Viper and the merchant ship was hit, these same people would be angry demanding why didn’t they do this (bonus points to be awarded for any tweet or message which linked this lack of firing to ‘wokery’ and ‘snowflakes’).  Over the years the author has been exposed to various naval weapon systems and has a relatively basic understanding of them and their roles. This does not make him an expert in their functional employment at sea. I have no intention of trying to second guess how people in harms way a high threat situation decide what to do or why – it’s a deeply inappropriate thing to do.

It is also mind-blowingly stupid on the part of others to start openly questioning how many missiles the ship has left onboard, or when she may need to replenish her stocks, and if so, where would she do it? This may sound an innocuous question, but many nations use the internet for intelligence gathering. It is a near 100% certainty that answers to questions like this, coming from people who clearly know their stuff will find their way into hostile intelligence teams hands and be used to plan future operations. The internet is not a safe space for warship fans to talk at length about things that could jeopardise the safety and even lives of Royal Navy (and allied) personnel in harms way. Please, if you’re focused on debating how many missiles are left or other such nonsense, try to remember that you are doing the enemy forces a favour in the process. Please don’t put sailors lives and safety at risk just so you can ‘win’ the internet.

Some commentators argue that the RN should be involved in retaliating ashore – that is again a risky option given that retaliation is complex and would involve almost certain loss of Iranian life – assuming IRGC personnel are assisting at various launch sites. Shooting down drones or missiles is one thing, deploying special forces or firing land attack missiles at these sites is quite different. The balance policy makers need to determine is whether its easier to accept the incoming rounds but not take action against launch sites for a variety of reasons that makes sense to those engaged in this great game, or whether fighting a proxy war with Iran in Yemen is a better policy outcome.

Missile Away! UK MOD © Crown copyright 2023

The challenge facing policy makers is trying to determine what makes the best overall sense. Push too hard on the Houthi and Iran can respond via different means, for example looking at options in the Arabian Gulf, or it could look to step up support it offers on different fronts, widening the conflict. It may also lead to longer term risks if more missiles are fired in the region at shipping, closing it down and causing significant economic disruption. It is perhaps a strange irony that for a nation with a very limited and not particularly capable navy, Iran exerts a significantly disproportionate influence on three of the world’s maritime chokepoints. There is doubtless a future ahead for a legion of students to assess whether you actually need a navy to secure control of the sea-lanes, or if you can do so via some cheap drones and willing third-party accomplices. We must be wary of charging headlong into a conflict with Iran just because it feels ‘right’. Unless we have a clearly defined end step and goal, escalating a proxy war is not automatically going to resolve the issues we face and could make things far more complex than they already are.  

The last point to make at this time is that arguing over cost of missile is pretty pointless. We know that missiles are expensive, but so too are merchant shipping insurance premiums. It’s a lot cheaper to our economy to fire a missile than it is to handle the impact of sunk ships. The risk of assuming a ‘but why didn’t they fire CIWS which is cheaper’ argument is that this is about more than just money. If ships are hit and start sinking and crews die, then the western economy quickly takes a hit that will be far more expensive. Quibbling over missile costs is pointless and unhealthy thinking – what matters is employing the right weapon for the scenario at hand, not worrying about the bill at the end of it – that’s for the Treasury to pick up…

Finally amid all the online chatter and commentary, can we please pause to remember what really matters here. Right now out at sea are a group of British, French, Spanish and American sailors who are sailing in very dangerous waters, facing off against an opponent who has demonstrated they have the will to fire missiles at them. This is  a demanding, challenging and doubtless very scary place to be. It is likely that many of the sailors, of all nations, in this space are both excited and probably quietly a bit nervous too. What matters above all else is that they and their families know they are supported throughout and that they all come home safely from this deployment, both physically and mentally. Please remember that there are many nervous families out there worried about loved ones, and that criticism and speculation may be of interest to you, but can cause immense stress and concern to them. We owe it to our people, and their families, to do right by them – If in doubt, check your fire until this has become an item of historic interest, not breaking news.

Above all else, let us reflect that HMS DIAMOND and her crew appear to be acquitting themselves well and in line with their motto “Honor clarissima gemma”- ‘Honour is the brightest jewel’.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

..