The NAvy WERE THERE at kidnap of Lynn Rival

[David_Jersey]

The Navy ships are not wandering around the Indian Ocean to protect or rescue recreational sailors nor to act as private security for commercial ships - the task is to protect the National Interest.

As I have said before, the safety of any Hostages is a high priority goal - but is not paramount.

When dealing with folks in an environment where playing by the Marquis of Queensbury rules is a mark of Darwinian stupidity not of civilisation it is useful for folks to be aware that you and yours are able to deliver (or be a cause of) an arbitary death experiance in an inconveniant manner for the recipient and a chunk of freinds & family, both now and at any time later.........out of principle, as a point to (unconnected) others, because it's funny and simply because it's half an excuse.........and that your people / resources are bigger than theirs. (in some things size does matter ).

And sometimes folks will get caught up in the middle, badly, but in the long run does create less trouble.

Therefore in the Lynn Rival example sinking the Yacht / Skiffs / Mother Ship with Hostages onboard (with the goal of picking them / the pirates up from a sinking vessel or the water) would be quite acceptable. Unfortunate if the Hostages drowned, but...............

Taking a Dixon of Dock Green approach wrapped up in wishful thinking is actually far worse than doing nothing long term - albeit of course has the short term advantage of: "no one gets blamed".

 

[toad_oftoadhall]

My training was to attack immediately, dominate with fire and seize the day.

I find this hard to believe. I have no hostage experience but it's not the way any hostage situation I've ever heard of was dealt with, at least until such time as it was clear that hostages were in immediate danger. Are you deliberately misrepresenting your hostage recovery training? Or do you just not remember? Or was it perhaps not really hostage recovery training at all?

Indeed, you cite the Iranian Embassy Siege. In that case they negotiated and used no force whatsoever until *six* days into the siege when the Terrorists had left no doubt at all that the hostages were in danger.

Don't believe me?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_Embassy_Siege

Also notice they chose to use the SAS to for the operation instead of the crew of an RFA and some helicopter mechanics.




Some general comments:

The people on the RFA made their decision with the benefit of recent and directly relevant experience of a hostage situation in which they'd rescued the hostages.

In contrast, the armchair Rambos quoting their hostage rescue plans in this thread (often blatantly delusional and using childishly OTT language) have nothing but the sparsest details of the situation and their comedic plans seem to be straight out of action films.

A five year old would be able to assess which of these two groups is more likely to have come up with an effective course of action.

The only rescue plan that's been suggested that makes any sense in this thread is making a show of force, perhaps involving gunfire in the hope that the hostage takers would surrender. I think it's impossible that the RFA would not have considered this given that they'd used the technique or something similar before. It seems far more plausible that they considered & discounted it for a very good reason based on what they saw at the time. It's not hard to imagine situations where a show of force would have been impossible or counter productive.

Gerry's final thought: The cost of recovering a crew from the Pirates by paying a ransom is often well into six figures. If people think they can recover hostages easily why not offer your services to the Insurance companies? At £500,000 a crew you'd be rich in a handful of jobs.

 

[Kukri]

Thank you for instilling some common sense into this twaddle.

 

[David_Jersey]

Iranian Embassy seige as a comparison ??? ROTFLMAO I rather suspect that you may genuinely beleive that a situation in London can be dealt with by HMG in the same way within the 3rd world / on the High Seas.

If the Somali Pirates do land at Dover I am very sure that a Police based approach / an SAS storming after a week would be the best approach, but HMG do not have the luxury of that approach being an option in Somalia.

So much wishful thinking

 

[toad_oftoadhall]

Iranian Embassy seige as a comparison ??? ROTFLMAO I rather suspect that you may genuinely beleive that a situation in London can be dealt with by HMG in the same way within the 3rd world / on the High Seas.

Just to be clear MajCat drew the comparison with the Iranian Siege, I was merely addressing his point, but I’m sure you knew that. Or did you?

 

[mlines]

Still, if we cannot shoot the pirates we can always practice on the Spanish....

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8371305.stm

 

[steveparker]

Hmm, I am, or have been, a little more than "an internet warrior."

As I have stated before, a hostage being caught in the crossfire is an unfortunate consequence of robust action, but one death may prevent many in the future as pirates will be reluctant to deal with flagged vessels that are capable of fighting back. They will increasingly seek softer targets, ie. ones they can attack out of sight of a navy or fleet auxiliary.

Why will they? Most of their big hits are on huge commercial vessels where there's no possibility of any useful naval action anyway. So why wouldn't they just raise their game and routinely kill a few sailors every time they take one, just to show everyone that cowboy interventions will end in certain fatalities? This isn't just about this one situation where two people were taken on their little yacht. It's about managing the whole picture. It's extremely delicate, and anyone who goes wading in risks getting a lot of people killed in the future.

Steve.

 

[toad_oftoadhall]

Why will they? Most of their big hits are on huge commercial vessels where there's no possibility of any useful naval action anyway. So why wouldn't they just raise their game and routinely kill a few sailors every time they take one, just to show everyone that cowboy interventions will end in certain fatalities? This isn't just about this one situation where two people were taken on their little yacht. It's about managing the whole picture. It's extremely delicate, and anyone who goes wading in risks getting a lot of people killed in the future.

Agree.

...and if you were prepared to go as far as killing innocent people to combat piracy it would be easier, cheaper (in both lives & money) and more effective to impose the death penalty on any insurer, shipping firm or private individual paying a ransom to pirates.

Thinking about it, I wonder if it's true that killing the "foot soldier" pirates is an effective deterrant. I bet there are countless poor people in the region who will take the most horrific risks for the cash & I very much doubt the big guys behind this care how many of thier minions come back from missions.

 

[steveparker]

I bet there are countless poor people in the region who will take the most horrific risks for the cash & I very much doubt the big guys behind this care how many of thier minions come back from missions.

Quite. It seems pretty clear from the intelligence coming out that a skiff with a big outboard is probably worth a lot more to 'the management' than its pirate crew, which can be replaced far more easily.

In an environment where people just really don't care about anything that *we* take for granted, you're banging up against a hugely divergent narrative of survival and exploitation. To suppose we can just prevail by barging in would be the same sort of mistake the US military made by hugely underestimating the local politics and fervour in the Black Hawk Down debacle.

Interesting to speculate about what to do next, though. Yachts should be almost banned, I think, as the luxury of this adventure sport of sailing through the pirate waters is way too expensive. Or, if you do, then you are entirely on your own. But regarding commercial shipping with a lot of cash available, there must be pretty easy ways to protect a big ship against pirates. I mean, given the profits these people make, it wouldn't be a huge relative investment to retrofit every ship with a system that pours out burning petroleum onto any assaulted area... or whatever. Plenty of ways to deter pirates relatively cheaply compared to the cost of a load of ransoms.

Steve.

 

[Bajansailor]

The story below is from Maritime Reporter & Engineering News at
http://marinelink.com/Story/ShowStory.aspx?StoryID=217400

Reminder of Best Practices Following Pirate Attacks

U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood reminded mariners about the importance of taking necessary precautions and implementing best practices in the wake of recent attacks on the M/V Harriett and Maersk Alabama off the coast of Somalia.

“These ships’ successful defense against pirates should serve as a reminder to the maritime industry of the best practices that can keep crews safe on the seas,” said Secretary LaHood. “Mariners should heed the lessons learned from past attacks and review defensive measures so that they are prepared when traveling through high-threat areas. The U.S. government will continue to work with ship operators to protect U.S. citizens in regions where piracy still poses a serious threat.”

Last week, the M/V Harriett thwarted a pirate attack by outrunning the pirate ship. Yesterday, guards aboard the Maersk Alabama repelled a pirate attack using small arms fire. No casualties were reported in the incident, which took place 350 nautical miles east of the Somali coast.

This was the second attack by pirates against the Maersk Alabama this year. In April, pirates hijacked the ship and took Captain Richard Phillips hostage, holding him at gunpoint in a lifeboat for five days until he was freed by Navy SEALs.

A maritime advisory issued in September by the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Maritime Administration warned vessels to avoid routes where attacks have taken place while also recommending that mariners demonstrate a willingness to defend themselves.

 

[Sinbad2222]

Idiot couple

This stupid pair sailing naively through the most dangerous waters in the world deserve whatever happens to them.
The RN is known to be gutless and manned by the typical youthful products of present day British society.
Pirates and yachties would best have been gunned down on the spot and no further incidents would happen.
"The people who really know about hostage rescue are the special forces, and their rules of engagement are generally pretty clear" - what utter nonsense.

 

[steveparker]

"The people who really know about hostage rescue are the special forces, and their rules of engagement are generally pretty clear" - what utter nonsense.

What are you saying exactly, Sinbad? The SAS are NOT the people who know about hostage rescue? Their rules of engagement are hazy? What? Jayzus, I didn't think about you. Maybe you are an even more specialised force than the SAS. Where's the nonsense, bro? Far as I know, the SAS do hostage routines week in week out. Am I wrong? Who should we be calling then, Sinbad?

Cheers,

Steve.

 

[Bobobolinsky]

Pay up and take the money from the navy's budget. It's just pence to them anyway. The Royal Navy has shown it's real effectiveness. They need someone with a red pen in whitehall. Bloody worthless cut the naval budget to ribbons and pay off the national debt. We need less navy, more letters of marque and bounties. WTF do we pay for. With an AK with 60 rounds costing less than £50 in Africa, it's gonna happen again. The government takes us to war on the grounds of anti terrorism and WMD's which didn't exist and expect us to fork out all that dosh. Pull out of Afganistan, pull out of Irac and cut the MOD budget it half. I reiterate why do we pay for them if they don't do the job.

 

[sailaboutvic]

Chandlers life’s threaten

I have started a new thread , asking for the people who know how to do it to start a petition to help get the paul and rachal release . please please please support this befor it too late

 

[sailaboutvic]

Chandlers life’s threaten

This stupid pair sailing naively through the most dangerous waters in the world deserve whatever happens to them.
.

sinbad your the type of person who never makes a mistake .NOT...It the type of coment I would expect from our careing Gov .
I sure the famliy of these couple will be please to read your coments ,

 

[Csail]

Do the entire country a favour, stick Brown, Mandleson and the rest of them in a small craft off Somalia.[/QUOTE]

That really would be a good idea.

Do you reckon the RN would rescue them?

 

[Major Catastrophe]

Toad, it is difficult replying on an iPhone, but here goes. I am not hostage rescue trained and the moment the RFA ship stood by the pirates were in the act of transfering the Chandlers, which was not a stalemate hostage situation, it was at that point that action should have been taken, and if you read my previous posts I only ever suggested use of onboard ship weapons, which it turns out included two 30mm cannons with fully trained crews.
Also, I did not write the article in today's Daily Mail, although much of it repeated many of my own thoughts in previous posts!!!!

When I mentioned the Embassy siege, I was referring to the sudden aggressive armed action. If you read contemporary accounts or have attended a presentation by some of the people who took part in the rescue, it is said that rather than try and fight, most of the bad boys tried to surrender or hide.

Must go, I am taking the boat out.

 

[Woodlouse]

Nonetheless she has rescued hostages held by pirates.

From the MOD (Again, you must have missed it before.):-
"RFA Wave Knight helped secure the release of 13 Yemeni fishermen who had been held hostage for a week and thwarted attempts by pirates to take over two tankers in the Gulf of Aden on Saturday 19 April. "

Vulnerable? This must have been downright reckless then:-
"The British ship [Wave Knight] successfully prevented pirates from boarding the vessel and fired warning shots which caused the attackers to flee ... RFA Wave Knight followed the pirate skiff for six hours..."

Two flaws in the point you're trying to make here.

From the first quote it specifically states that "RFA Wave Knight helped secure the release of 13 Yemeni fishermen", so the RFA was not acting alone in this incident. Are you going to provide a full account so we know who else was involved or would that harm your argument too much?

The second quote states that "The British ship [Wave Knight] successfully prevented pirates from boarding the vessel and fired warning shots which caused the attackers to flee", so the pirates hadn't yet boarded the vessel but had proved their intentions clearly enough to warrant aggressive action to prevent them getting too close. This is very different from firing at pirates after they have actually captured their target and hostages.

And for f**ks sake will people stop blaming the Royal Navy. They weren't even there.

 

[steveparker]

I am not hostage rescue trained

That's pretty obvious.

and the moment the RFA ship stood by the pirates were in the act of transfering the Chandlers, which was not a stalemate hostage situation,

Wrong. The pirates had the hostages and could easily kill them. Why is that not a stalemate given the clear rules of engagement that the lives of the hostages were not to be endangered by any provocative action? RFA fire warning shots. Pirates shoot a hostage in the leg. RFA do what exactly next? Nil points, fella.

If you read contemporary accounts or have attended a presentation by some of the people who took part in the rescue, it is said that rather than try and fight, most of the bad boys tried to surrender or hide.

Yeah, read about the seige of the Beslan school or however many other bungled rescue attempts. One of the hostages in that instance was shot over 40 times in the back when the kidnappers went crazy. And then deal with the whole issue of escalation. Tell me why, if you were a pirate and the RFA had just killed a bunch of other pirates, you wouldn't figure it was time to get serious and start killing hostages to announce your serious intentions. I sure would. There are millions of dollars to be made from this stuff. Who cares if I kill a few Danish or Russian sailors if that's what it takes to get people like you to shut up and start listening?

I dunno, really. You sound sort of pre-WW1 in your tactical sophistication and grasp of the big picture.

Cheers,

Steve.

 

[reginaldon]

And the real Navy in us makes us hang our heads in shame!