HMS Ocean's new role: Olympic Security backup

Grey Havoc

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
9 October 2009
Messages
19,838
Reaction score
10,326
Military to help out with Olympic 2012 security

The largest ship in the Royal Navy, HMS Ocean, is to be stationed in the Thames to provide back up for the Olympics, along with 13,500 members of the Armed Forces.




By Duncan Gardham, Security Correspondent

3:30PM GMT 15 Dec 2011




The Ministry of Defence said there would be 7,500 military personnel helping with security at Olympic venues, despite a pledge by Scotland Yard that they would deliver a “blue games” keeping the military presence to a minimum.


The numbers are thought to have been drafted in after security chiefs had to massively revise the number of security personnel that will be needed.


HMS Ocean, which has recently returned from providing support for the Libyan campaign, will provide logistics support, accommodation and a helicopter landing site.


Helicopters, likely to be Puma and Lynx, will fly from HMS Ocean to provide airspace security.


HMS Bulwark, the Flagship of the Royal Navy, will be based in Weymouth Bay in Dorset, where the sailing events take place, to provide a maritime command and control base along with accommodation, logistics and a helicopter.


Typhoon jets will be stationed temporarily at RAF Northolt in London and ground-based air defence capabilities will also be deployed to protect British airspace.

In total the Ministry of Defence expects to contribute up to 13,500 personnel, including 5,000 personnel to support the police with capabilities including explosive ordnance disposal teams, military working dogs and Royal Navy support to maritime policing.

There will also be a 1,000-strong unarmed contingency force for deployment in the event of an Olympics-related civil emergency and another 1,000 personnel to provide logistics support.

The total includes up to 7,500 personnel who will help with security at venues.

Philip Hammond, the Secretary of State for Defence, said: "Next year's Olympic and Paralympic Games are once-in-a-generation events for the UK. We want them to be secure, so that all those competing and attending can enjoy the Games for the celebration of sporting achievement and cultural celebration that it is.”

He said he had no doubt that the forces personnel would do a “fantastic job” and added: “I look forward to their professionalism and agility being on show on the world stage once again."

The Ministry of Defence said the games would not divert the Armed Forces from protecting Britain and from current operations in Afghanistan and elsewhere as well as “the ability to respond to the unexpected.”

They said the defence contribution to London 2012 was on a similar scale to military deployed at other recent Olympic games.

A statement added: “The Government is clear that the Games should be a peaceful celebration of sporting achievement and a cultural celebration – not a security event.”

Assistant Commissioner Chris Allison of the Metropolitan Police, the National Olympic Security Coordinator, said that delivering a safe and secure games would only be achieved through a range of different agencies working closely together.

He said the security operation would be the police service’s biggest ever peacetime operation.

“Our relationship with the Armed Forces has developed over a number of years and we have huge experience in working with them to deliver major events,” he added. “Their support to our operation is built on these tried and tested practices.”

HMS Ocean is an amphibious assault ship, designed to deliver troops into a war zone by helicopter or by landing craft.

The ship has six helicopter operating spots on the flight deck and the hangar can hold many more aircraft.

The ship has its own Royal Marine assault squadron, 9ASRM, and also carries four landing craft capable of carrying troops and vehicles.

HMS Bulwark is the Flagship of the Royal Navy. She can carry 256 Royal Marines with their vehicles and combat supplies, and this can be swollen up to 405 troops.


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/olympics/news/8958712/Military-to-help-out-with-Olympic-2012-security.html
 
"ground-based air defence capabilities will also be deployed to protect British airspace."


So is London/The City/Northwood usually undefended by an IADS then? Or is lazy journalism the way to go?


I love how the official story is that the original estimate for security costs was based on an "arbitrary" number of 10K personnel needed. Arbitrary is a fancy word for made up.


So is the entire rest of the project similarly funded, or was it just the safety of the athletes and spectators that was guesstimated? Or, tinfoil hat on, is this how you militarise the security of a civilian event without it looking like it was the intent all along?


I can't imagine security isn't a major, if discreet, pillar of any IOC submission for the obvious historic reasons. So I can't help but feel the most likely hypothesis here is that we're being lied to by those with good intentions, just for a change.
 
Gridlock said:
"ground-based air defence capabilities will also be deployed to protect British airspace."


So is London/The City/Northwood usually undefended by an IADS then? Or is lazy journalism the way to go?

There's a Rapier unit at Woolwich which they used to pull out onto the common and point at the aircraft taking off from City airport the other side of the river for training occasionally.
 
Or, tinfoil hat on, is this how you militarise the security of a civilian event without it looking like it was the intent all along?

Given that this is the Olympics, poor planning and woeful underestimation of requirements is far more likely. IIRC there are now quite explicit rules for the use of military forces in support of civilian organisations and it's not that easy (or cheap) to bring them in to make up the gaps.

Regarding deployment of the Mighty O; the Beeb described her as a "battleship". Yes, I actually shouted at the telly. In the gym.

RP1
 
RP1 said:
Or, tinfoil hat on, is this how you militarise the security of a civilian event without it looking like it was the intent all along?

Given that this is the Olympics, poor planning and woeful underestimation of requirements is far more likely. IIRC there are now quite explicit rules for the use of military forces in support of civilian organisations and it's not that easy (or cheap) to bring them in to make up the gaps.

Regarding deployment of the Mighty O; the Beeb described her as a "battleship". Yes, I actually shouted at the telly. In the gym.

RP1

If the Ocean is a battleship then what is a Type 45? A torpedo boat? ::) How far Telly reporting has fallen.
 
Latest on Olympic SAMs

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/olympics/news/9234030/Missiles-stationed-on-residential-roof-for-Olympics.html

So glad to hear it won't be mere squaddies in charge of them, however "ten officers" sounds like too many chiefs for my liking. Or perhaps the Telegraph's military reporting has gone downhill again.

Mind you, yesterday's Telegraph report on the Air France 447 did tell us how to pronounce "pitot", so it's not just the military reporting that's dumbing-down.

Chris
 
CJGibson said:
Latest on Olympic SAMs

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/olympics/news/9234030/Missiles-stationed-on-residential-roof-for-Olympics.html

So glad to hear it won't be mere squaddies in charge of them, however "ten officers" sounds like too many chiefs for my liking. Or perhaps the Telegraph's military reporting has gone downhill again.

Mind you, yesterday's Telegraph report on the Air France 447 did tell us how to pronounce "pitot", so it's not just the military reporting that's dumbing-down.

Chris

A third of them will probably be TA anyway so will no doubt target everything that comes into sight from their vantage point !!!
 
CJGibson said:
Latest on Olympic SAMs

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/olympics/news/9234030/Missiles-stationed-on-residential-roof-for-Olympics.html

So glad to hear it won't be mere squaddies in charge of them, however "ten officers" sounds like too many chiefs for my liking. Or perhaps the Telegraph's military reporting has gone downhill again.

Mind you, yesterday's Telegraph report on the Air France 447 did tell us how to pronounce "pitot", so it's not just the military reporting that's dumbing-down.

Chris

"Ten Officers"? Is that one per site or ten on one site? If there are ten "chiefs" on one site where will the "indians" find room to swing and fire the missiles? Or are they using the term "officiers" to mean "soldiers"? Ten sounds like two detachments, each armed with one launcher (I assume Starstreak MANPADS?).
 
The story says "10 soldiers plus police." So does the pamphlet that was distributed by MoD. The only person saying "ten officers" is a building resident quoted in the article.
 
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newsvideo/9245926/London-2012-Olympics-HMS-Ocean-squeezes-through-the-Thames-Barrier.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/picturegalleries/uknews/9246216/London-2012-Olympics-HMS-Ocean-moors-on-the-Thames-for-security-operation.html
 
To maintain steerage I suppose. Limited angles available to the tugs so she has to maintain rudder effectiveness. With all that windage you might not want to hang around.


RP1
 
Looks like the Royal Navy and the rest of the Armed Forces are going to have their work cut out for them:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/olympics/news/9395081/Olympic-security-contractor-G4S-told-ministers-only-yesterday-it-could-not-fulfil-brief.html
Retired Colonel Richard Kemp, a former UK commander in Afghanistan, told the programme that the deployment of troops to the Olympics would hit many "very hard indeed".

He said: "Many of the soldiers that are coming - this extra 3,500 - I understand are soldiers who have just returned from Afghanistan or about to deploy to Afghanistan, so they are people who I imagine are getting ready to go on leave with their families, a well-deserved leave perhaps after six months away on operations or training for future operations, and this will hit them very hard indeed.

"As always when you give any part of the Armed Forces a task they will do it extremely well, extremely professionally and with a smile on their face, I have no doubt about that, and they recognise the importance of what they are being asked to do - they won't skimp at it, they won't regard it as a trivial task, I don't think.

"But we shouldn't forget also that many of these soldiers are people who have been told in the last few days that they are going to be made redundant, that their regiments are being scrapped and they are under great pressure already. The wider morale in the armed forces now is very fragile and this will simply add to that fragility."


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/olympics/news/9393126/MoD-fury-as-soldiers-forced-to-carry-out-menial-security-tasks-for-Olympic-Games.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/olympics/news/9394717/Olympic-security-soldiers-could-be-forced-to-sleep-in-school-halls.html


Note that the 3500 figure is apparently a best case estimate.
 
Olympics security: London airspace restrictions to start (BBC News)
The temporary additional restrictions to airspace in and around the capital comes into force at 00:01 BST on Saturday (23:01 GMT on Friday) and will last for a month.

The prohibited zone will be about 30 miles wide and does not affect commercial aircraft, which fly in established air traffic corridors.

As part of Friday's build-up to the airspace restrictions, Sea King helicopters are being deployed to RAF Northolt.

And HMS Ocean is set to return to London with a deployment of Royal Marines to provide security on the River Thames.

It comes the day after ground-based air defence systems were installed at four sites in and around London.

Earlier this week, Typhoon fighters were deployed to RAF Northolt, while RAF Puma helicopters and snipers were deployed to Ilford in east London.
 
On a slightly happier note:​

HMS_Ocean_2276725k.jpg

150 sailors and aircrew recreating the Olympic Rings on the flight deck of HMS Ocean
Picture: PA (via Daily Telegraph)​
 
RP1 said:
[quote author=Gridlock]Or, tinfoil hat on, is this how you militarise the security of a civilian event without it looking like it was the intent all along?

Given that this is the Olympics, poor planning and woeful underestimation of requirements is far more likely. IIRC there are now quite explicit rules for the use of military forces in support of civilian organisations and it's not that easy (or cheap) to bring them in to make up the gaps.
[/quote]


A cynic is rarely proven wrong :D
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom