The Chandlers - More depressing revelations!

[Cruiser2B]

No



The ransom is never cheaper because the demand just go on for ever.

I have to assume you're unaware that the 21 crew of the Kota Wajar are also hostages. I don't know all their nationalities - there are a couple Singaporeans and a couple of Indians that I am aware of; the rest are probably working stiffs from poorer countries. I would hope with this revelation that you will no longer suggest it's acceptable to sacrifice them to save the Chandlers.

The demand for ransoms won't go away if you start sinking the hijacked boats - the body count will rise and prices for goods will go up.

 

[Cruiser2B]

GOD they didnt have to sink the bloody ship all that need to be done was to disable it . stop it for going any way ..

How exactly do you propose to do that? Lobbing shells indiscriminately through the sides of the ship?

ok your on a ship going no where , now what .. not much option left to you is there ?

ok we're on a big ship with enough supplies and water on board to last us until our pirate buddies can send another mothership from Hobyo, and enough hostages that we can starting capping 'em one at a time until the Navy pisses off over the horizon. Oh, and a satellite phone so we can let CNN/BBC know about it.

 

[Wandering Star]

How exactly do you propose to do that? Lobbing shells indiscriminately through the sides of the ship?

Who mentioned lobbing shells indiscriminately? Why not accurately and at the most vulnerable area of the ship (wherever that may be) to ensure the boat starts filling as rapidly as possible to create the most panic?

ok we're on a big ship with enough supplies and water on board to last us until our pirate buddies can send another mothership from Hobyo, and enough hostages that we can starting capping 'em one at a time until the Navy pisses off over the horizon. Oh, and a satellite phone so we can let CNN/BBC know about it.

I think if the boats sinking under them, they're going to be looking to be rescued by the RNR supply ship not to another mother ship which could be hours away and which would also be holed if it comes within range. Therefore shooting hostages isn't going to be a wise move. Don't forget too, there were 25 Marines and a fully kitted RN frigate only a couple of hours away, any other pirate boat would keep well away in the circumstances.

Cheers, Brian.

 

[Bishop Terrorchoke]

Who mentioned lobbing shells indiscriminately? Why not accurately and at the most vulnerable area of the ship (wherever that may be) to ensure the boat starts filling as rapidly as possible to create the most panic? I think if the boats sinking under them, they're going to be looking to be rescued by the RNR supply ship not to another mother ship which could be hours away and which would also be holed if it comes within range. Therefore shooting hostages isn't going to be a wise move. Don't forget too, there were 25 Marines and a fully kitted RN frigate only a couple of hours away, any other pirate boat would keep well away in the circumstances.

Cheers, Brian.

I have been trying to stay out of this rather ridiculous thread but . . . didn't you read the bit where Cruiser2B pointed out that there are already 21 hostages on the 'mother ship'? And you want to hole it so it will sink as quickly as possible? Do you know where the hostages all are? Perhaps locked up in the bowels of the ship.

If you would personally fire that shot then let us be very thankful that you are only an armchair admiral


BishopT

 

[Major Catastrophe]

I have been trying to stay out of this rather ridiculous thread but . . .

Yes, I agree it is a ridiculous thread.

Once you start to conduct anti piracy operations with full health and safety considerations, then we have to wonder why we are expensively maintaining anti piracy operations out there using the armed forces, along with their quasi military support apparatus.

As I have repeated above, all hostage rescue attempts are inherently dangerous and often result in deaths, but I belong to the school of thought that it is better to do something, rather than be in attendance merely as an impotent observer.

Given pirates a nasty look is hardly going to put them off being pirates.

 

[Wandering Star]

Well, yes I would. Collateral damage is sometimes unavoidable. My point is by allowing the mother ship to embark the Chandlers raises the number of hostages on that mother ship to 23 and leaves the pirates with the total reassurance hostage taking is a risk free way of raking in a few million. It puts a bounty on the head of all other sailors.

We should have (and still should when a similiar situation aises in the future) have engaged with the pirates whatever the loss of life, paying ransoms should not be an option and should be a criminal offence. We should ensure piracy becomes a futile career and we can do that quite easily by making it dangerous and without reward.

Cheers, Brian.

 

[Ubergeekian]

As I have repeated above, all hostage rescue attempts are inherently dangerous and often result in deaths, but I belong to the school of thought that it is better to do something, rather than be in attendance merely as an impotent observer.

How many times have you been taken hostage? Was that your opinion then?

 

[Bishop Terrorchoke]

Well, yes I would. Collateral damage is sometimes unavoidable.

So you would risk killing 23 people for a principle. Glad we got that straight. I don't think I would like to go sailing with you.

BishopT

 

[Wandering Star]

So you would risk killing 23 people for a principle. Glad we got that straight. I don't think I would like to go sailing with you.

BishopT

You're "glad we got that straight"? What needed to be got straight? I've made it very clear what I think should have happened. You don't of course have to agree with me. And it's not a "principle", it's my opinion that giving in to hostage takers in the short term makes everyone far less safe in the longer term. Where I seem to differ from yourself is you seem to believe someone who holds a different view from yourself is somehow a horrid cruel person.

Since I don't remember ever offering to take you sailing, your closing attempt at an insult falls some way short of it's intended mark!

Cheers, Brian.

 

[Major Catastrophe]

How many times have you been taken hostage? Was that your opinion then?

Just the once. Bosnia 1993.

Saved by the arrival of a quick reaction force.

Yes okay, I wasn't the hostage, but eight of my men were stopped at a road block and detained against their will with no idea of their fate.

The signaller managed to get out a contact report and the QRF arrived an hour later and after a bit of negotiation with threats and a show of force, they backed off and we got our men, vehicles and weapons back and it was all done without having to clear it with some nob sitting in the Northwood bunker. In fact, other than notifying my immediate commander what was happened, we dealt with the situation without any advice or instruction. Ex squaddies, especially officers, will know exactly what I am talking about.

It happened quite a lot to the UNPROFOR forces as we were dealing with some very nasty and murderous people who had and continued to engage in wholesale killing of innocents.

But, because of robust intervention most situation were resolved quickly and quietly, often because higher HQ's were out of radio contact. Clansman eh!

I, and many other soldiers were threatened with detention in the course of the many patrols and journeys we undertook, but most of the time we travelled in two separate packets so that if one got into a bad situation, the other could intervene.

For me it was a short but very intense tour, but I was withdrawn from theatre as a victim of the cull of a 862 army middle management to save a bit of money.

In 1995 there was the Srebrenica Massacre where Dutch forces stood by and allowed 8,000 Bosnian Muslims be marched off from a 'safe haven' and killed. It is said that the lack of action on the part of the Dutch forces was because they were under orders from a remote higher NATO headquarters to not intervene and was unable to grasp the actual operational conditions. If the HQ had devolved command to the Dutch CO he may have saved many lives. As it was, he was ordered to withdraw.

This idea of an officer in a remote headquarters deciding what actions or tactics a commander on the ground should take is alien, dangerous and goes to show how entire societies are being micromanaged. From bobbies on the beat to soldiers on the ground and marines at sea, they now all have to be told when to pee and when to cr*p.

The better the communications get, the more troops on the ground will have to clear actions with a higher formation, if not Northwood itself.

Anyway, this is my last post (pun intended) on this subject. If you had been part of the forces in the 'old days' before 24 communications and mobile phones, the 22 years of infantry training I got to make me think for myself and take immediate, appropriate and robust action, may make more sense.

 

[Cruiser2B]

Who mentioned lobbing shells indiscriminately? Why not accurately and at the most vulnerable area of the ship (wherever that may be) to ensure the boat starts filling as rapidly as possible to create the most panic? I think if the boats sinking under them, they're going to be looking to be rescued by the RNR supply ship not to another mother ship which could be hours away and which would also be holed if it comes within range. Therefore shooting hostages isn't going to be a wise move. Don't forget too, there were 25 Marines and a fully kitted RN frigate only a couple of hours away, any other pirate boat would keep well away in the circumstances.

In addition to BishopT's excellent points, you might consider that it is a containership - much of the space below the waterline is comprised of fuel tanks - hit one that's half-empty and BOOM! The other option is the engineering spaces below the superstructure - these would almost certainly have innocent crew in them, and are surrounded by the inhabited areas of the ship. Again a good chance of blowing the ship up, or starting a massive fire. The only other option that I can imagine for stopping the ship (not sinking it) is to take out the bridge - again almost certain there'll be innocents there. If you did manage the magic shot that starts the ship sinking rapidly, then I suppose the pirates would have to take a few hostages back to their skiff and/or the Lynn Rival - with fewer supplies available I would imagine the hostages would be denied food and water - not good for them.

 

[Wandering Star]

Instead of criticising anyone who thinks we should take a tough line against hostage takers even to the extent of putting some hostages lives at risk, why not enlighten us with your own risk free ideas for how we could put an end to hostage taking. Or are you just saying we should allow hostage takers free reign and settle all their ransoms on demand - now and into the future?

Serious question. I'm off to bed now so won't read your reply until tomorrow morning.

Cheers, Brian.

 

[Ubergeekian]

Instead of criticising anyone who thinks we should take a tough line against hostage takers even to the extent of putting some hostages lives at risk, why not enlighten us with your own risk free ideas for how we could put an end to hostage taking. Or are you just saying we should allow hostage takers free reign and settle all their ransoms on demand - now and into the future?

What's really puzzling me about this is that we seem to be getting two different demands:

(1) That more should have been done to help the Chandlers and

(2) That more should have been done to stop the pirates, even if it meant killing the Chandlers

and some posters seem to be arguing for both.

 

[Cruiser2B]

Instead of criticising anyone who thinks we should take a tough line against hostage takers even to the extent of putting some hostages lives at risk, why not enlighten us with your own risk free ideas for how we could put an end to hostage taking. Or are you just saying we should allow hostage takers free reign and settle all their ransoms on demand - now and into the future?

I gather this was directed at me. I haven't criticised anyone - I've only pointed out the glaring flaws in some peoples' glib suggestions about what the RN woulda/shoulda done. I'm still waiting for the experienced 40mm marksmen on this forum to tell me how they would've disabled the Kota Wajar without imperilling other hostages.

In another thread I was critical of the Chandlers for not maintaining a lookout and therefore not being in a position to mount any form of defence. In yet another thread someone posted a link to a Discovery programme about a Danish warship coming to the aid of a commercial vessel under attack from pirates - in that case the crew of the vessel launched flares and molotov cocktails at the pirates, so the crew of the Absalon didn't have a hostage situation to contend with - they rescued and arrested the pirates from their burning skiff instead.

I think there is little else that can be done with the hostage situations, other than what is currently happening - governments refusing to pay ransom and the families of the hostages engaging private "negotiators". The Amanda Lindhout situation reinforces in my mind that the governments should tell the families right away that they will do nothing and they should go the private route. That's not to say that Special Forces could not be used where they have enough of an advantage that minimal risk is applied to the hostage(s) - Maersk Alabama is the ideal; Tanit outcomes should be avoided.

I think the naval strategy in use is flawed - there is simply no way to monitor the entire vastness of the ocean with a handful of warships. They would be better employed in MIO off the Somali coast, stopping/boarding/inspecting every vessel coming into and out of the known pirate ports. Some have suggested attacking the pirates shoreside, but believe that would likely result in a repeat of Mogadishu. I personally think the pirates should be executed on sight, but realize that the liberalisation of our western society will prevent it, in the same way it has done away with capital punishment. This also hampers our ability to deal with pirates that we capture - there are blessed few countries that are manning up and prosecuting the pirates. Most of them only do so where the pirates attacked vessels under their own flags.

As I said before the onus is on the mariner(s) to fend off the pirates until the forces can intervene. Don't be a hostage. And if you become a hostage, suck it up and don't blame the navy because they didn't kill you trying.

 

[grumpy_o_g]

I don't know where the 40mm thing came from. The main weapon on the RFA was a variant of a cannon I've have regularly seen score DH's on 10 foot square target from an aircraft doing a few hundred knots at a range of several hundred yards or more.

I am told it is far more accurate when turret-mounted and given a good targeting mechanism. My only concern would be if a spread pattern was built in to give a cone of fire for it's anti-missile duties. Even if that was the case at the distance the RFA is supposed to have been they could have made a real mess of her stern gear or holed her right at the bow - that could have been sealed off leaving the vessel watertight but unable to make much speed and not a very viable mothership.

As for the fuel tanks blowing up, it's remarkably hard to get Avtur to blow up, never mind heavy fuel oil. It would take an incendiary or tracer round to actually get a fire started and the risk of explosion is very low compared to all the other risks around.

I'm not suggesting that this is what should have been done - just trying to point out that there's a whole range of options other than just standing off. It's absolutely impossible to say what was the right one unless you where there and even then you take a risk.

There's been a fair few comments saying "but you weren't there" but that's exactly who seems to have made the decision - someone who wasn't there.

 

[Captn D]

I started this thread because I was dismayed at the way that this story was being slowly leaked out and that the way the British Government appeared not very keen to state the whole truth. I did also wonder whether they were embarrassed that a ship with a contingent of marines only 50yds away were told not to go to the Chandler's assistance. However, maybe there is still more to all this that for very important reasons hasn't been released. It also concerned me that we, the British taxpayers, are paying for these Marines and ships to protect vessels and, if they are told to do nothing, why are they there?
Hopefully, for the Chandler's the final result will be a happy one. However, questions do need asking.

 

[Cruiser2B]

I don't know where the 40mm thing came from. The main weapon on the RFA was a variant of a cannon I've have regularly seen score DH's on 10 foot square target from an aircraft doing a few hundred knots at a range of several hundred yards or more.

Sorry I assumed they had Bofors; google tells me 30mm - do you know what the mount is? With those DH's you mentioned, were they firing cyclic? How many rounds fell outside of the targets? My experience with naval guns tells me that the level of accuracy you suggest is achievable only through pure chance.

I am told it is far more accurate when turret-mounted and given a good targeting mechanism. My only concern would be if a spread pattern was built in to give a cone of fire for it's anti-missile duties. Even if that was the case at the distance the RFA is supposed to have been they could have made a real mess of her stern gear or holed her right at the bow - that could have been sealed off leaving the vessel watertight but unable to make much speed and not a very viable mothership.

As for the fuel tanks blowing up, it's remarkably hard to get Avtur to blow up, never mind heavy fuel oil. It would take an incendiary or tracer round to actually get a fire started and the risk of explosion is very low compared to all the other risks around.

As an AA weapon, the rounds would be HE - I suppose they could have used blank load training rounds, but with a muzzle velocity of 1400m/s I'm sure you'll agree that a lot of heat will be generated, if not a few sparks, on impact.

I don't know what they've bunkered with, but all fuel oils 'bleed' explosive vapours to some degree. This is why tankerships fill their empty tanks with inert gas. While hitting a full tank with bricks might not cause an explosion, hitting any partly empty tanks very well could have.

Holing her bow would have done very little, and being loaded, her stern gear was not exposed - unless you're suggesting they shoot up the whole stern end, where innocents would have been located. Also shooting blindly into an area with running machinery, hydraulic fluids, oil tanks might start a fire or cause an explosion.

 

[grumpy_o_g]

A million miles from Bofors!! On the old AA Bofors I could just about hit the sky never mind a target

I believe they carry two Phalanx Mk15 - the Mark is crucial as the Phalanx is an anti-missile system and the later Mark allows it to be depressed far enough for surface to surface use and adds surface to surface targeting via radar, optical and IR.

It fires 50 or 75 rounds a second, can be spent uranium or just something like tungsten I suspect. It relies on sheer weight of metal and kinetic energy as that's about the only way to knock a missile out of the sky at close range.

Quite astounding to watch in action against surface targets - there's a short sharp noise for a second or so at most, almost like a ratchet slipping very fast indeed, and then the target just disintegrates or even disappears.

I really like the weapon as, for once, all the ingenuity went into stopping people getting killed instead of killing them.

 

[Cruiser2B]

I'm quite familiar with CIWS. DU is incendiary, but I believe is rarely used now, due to issues with radioactive dust. The tungsten rounds are tracer, and afaik there are no other ammo variants. I was under the impression that Wave Knight was fitted for, not with Phalanx. If that was their only cannon, then the suggestion it be used to hole the Kota Wajar is even more ludicrous. CIWS can't fire a single shot - it's a burst of a couple dozen rounds minimum. And although the optical camera has a reticle for aiming, its primary function is for the operator to visually confirm the target - it's not at all ideal for sniping.
But it would certainly get the pirates' attention - R2D2 spewing flame, the death-whir and bits of the ship disintegrating - might make them **** their pants enough to surrender.

 

[grumpy_o_g]

That was my point actually - you'd have to be drugged or insane to carry on upsetting someone after they gave you a burst from one of those.

I believe Wave Ruler has been fitted with Phalanx now but I can only go on what I can find on the web. One thing though- the Mark 15 she is fitted with isn't the original CWIS version - it's been considerably modified with new sighting and targeting systems to cope with the surface to surface role. The system has a very high degree of accuracy with both automatic and operator targeting.

You can certainly get tungsten projjie sabot style rounds for the Vulcan cannon that the Phalanx is based on and they're definitely not tracer. I couldn't say for certain that Phalanx uses it but I'd be amazed if she fired tracer at all. There's not a lot of point in tracer rounds when you're firing short bursts from or at an a/c - you've got absolutely no chance of optically re-aiming and getting another burst off.