The NAvy WERE THERE at kidnap of Lynn Rival

[footsoldier]

Those of the politically-correct, do nothing, think of the elfensafety school of thought, which seems to include the naval top-brass, might wish to reflect on what the Chandlers must have thought.

They're being attacked by half a dozen towel-heads in a skiff, when they are joined by a sodding great naval vessel carrying 1 x Merlin helicopter, 26 Marines, 2 x 30mm cannon, 4 x 7.62 machine guns, a collection of fast ribs and launches and an armoury full of small arms and ammunition. I reckon they probably thought "Thank God, We're saved". They probably imagined that someone aboard would have sufficient initiative, bottle and tactical ingenuity to rescue them from their plight; perhaps by cutting off the skiff from its mothership, perhaps by swamping it, perhaps by seizing the mothership or perhaps by putting a rib full of marines alongside and facing them down. At least having a go.

I think they might have been a tad disappointed when the Navy just sat and watched while they were taken away.

 

[PeterGibbs]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...ed-yacht-couple-Paul-and-Rachel-Chandler.html


I just cant believe wht I have just read.
The Navy were within 50 feet of the Lynn Rival when the pirates sped away.
I know there were risks of life, but surely this cant be right at all.
It was an RFA, but had a helicopter and troops on board. HMS Cumberland was 2 hours away.

Well, should the Navy have been empowered to do something?

I wonder if naval command appreciates the message this event puts out? Pirates can seize two nationals right under the eyes of a major naval vessel and it will take no action. Juicy. Will someone repeat why these ships are out there then? Someone at the top has lost the plot!

I will have to modify my criticisms of the German contribution to the NATO forces in Afghanistan, who perform no inderdictive duties and for political reasons. Does this incident suggest we are shifting in their direction?

Oh, and what a gift to the many who want to cut our defence budget on the grounds that we make no difference in the theatre of war / piracy? No wonder the MOD mandarins tried to keep this all under wraps - how craven in the face of such bravery from our front line troups!

PWG

 

[Slow_boat]

Not a naval vessel, an RFA vessel. Basically, merchant seamen on a supply and support vessel. Not sure if there were any marines on board. Certainly no John Wayne or Bruce Willis on board.

Come on, guys. This is real life, not Hollywood. It's not that easy in real life.

 

[FullCircle]

I'm quite used to making 'real time stategic and tactical risk assesment in potentially life threatening situations' (to use the jargon) and I just don't see any other action that could have been justified.

Spray the skiff with a GPMG? Try to take the kidnappers out with an SA80? Shoot them from the air (are the choppeers on RFC ships armed?)

They had hostages, FFS!

And why would it be okay to kill Somalian 'pirates' on sight in the Indian Ocean but not IRA terrorists on the streets of Belfast?

There you go again. I didnt at any point say that I would advocate their indiscriminate wiping out.

However, I did say that we could hound and block their motherships from returning, and all the time letting them know by negotiation what the consequences of not ceasing their activities are.
By extrapolation, these situations have a ladder of escalation. In the 1970s, it was reckoned there were 44 steps to Nuclear War. Beyond step 39, nuclear engagement was virtually unavoidable. All sides knew the rules, so after posturing, no one went over it.

You mention the Northern Irish situation. Not really relevant as they were fighting politically and not for profit.

However, the Armed forces operated under Rules of Engagement, and all troops carried a Yellow Card with the ROE.

Here it is in Long Form

British Military ROE

The British Ministry of Defence officially defines ROE as:

"Directives issued by competent military authority which delineate the circumstances and limitations under which UK forces will initiate and/or continue combat engagement with other forces encountered." [1]

The ROE deal with four issues:

* When military force may be used,
* Where military force may be used,
* Against whom force should be used in the circumstances described above, and
* How military force should be used to achieve the desired ends.

The ROE take two forms: Actions a military commander may take without consulting a higher authority, unless explicitly forbidden (sometimes called 'command by negation') and second, actions that may only be taken if explicitly ordered by a higher authority (sometimes called 'positive command'). Also, in the event that there is a clear and present danger.

In addition to a typically large set of standing orders, military personnel will be given additional rules of engagement before performing any mission or military operation. These can cover circumstances such as how to retaliate after an attack, how to treat captured targets, which territories the soldier is bound to fight into, and how the force should be used during the operation.

The ROE are extremely important:

1. They provide a consistent, understandable and repeatable standard on how forces act. Typically they are carefully thought out in detail well in advance of an engagement and may cover a number of scenarios, with different rules for each.
2. They assist in the synchronization of political-diplomatic and military components of a strategy by allowing political commanders to better understand, forecast and tailor the actions of a force.

The first rule of engagement for British Armed Forces is always the right to use force in self-defence.



Now, it isn't beyond our wit to devise a similar Yellow Card for ROE in this situation, which would include, at its extremity, the ultimate sanction.
If this is published and seen to be exercised, it gives the pirates fair warning.

 

[Slow_boat]

I'm aware of the ROE and the yellow card. I visited Belfast as a police officer before the 'ceasfire'. The RUC officer I was with pointed out people on the street along the lines of 'He's a quartermaster with the IRA, he's a unionist enforcer, he's a bomb maker, he's a shooter' telling me who they'd bombed, shot, kneecapped etc just like I knew my local burglars and muggers. Yet because there was no war or conflict declared and the troops were there to back the civil police, it wasn't possible to take them out and understandably no-one would give evidence against them. (A lot of the so-called- terrorists were little more than drugs dealers and gangsters anyway. The Protestant/Catholic thing was more about carving up crime and drugs dealing areas by then.) It happened in Gibralter and look at the fuss that caused. It used to make me sick that the terrorists could claim to be soldiers at war until they were captured or shot and then they would claim and hide behind their 'rights' under the civil law.

As for rules of engagement with the 'Pirate';

I should imagine that force, possibly deadly force, could be used to defend civil or military shipping and life or to effect a rescue but that is far from a 'shoot on sight' policy. If an attempt had been made to rescue the Chandlers and it had resulted in their deaths, then the 'pirates' broke off the engagement and ran for it, I don't think futher 'deadly force' would be justified in the ensuing enquiry. That's where it becomes punishment rather that a tactical imperative.

There again, the Yank cops are allowed to shoot at fleeing suspects.

 

[Slow_boat]

I've got to log off now but in the meantime, can anyone come up with a reasonable plan of what could have been done to rescue the Chandlers, given the scenario we have?

 

[Bajansailor]

When I read that article from the Telegraph this morning, I distinctly remember the article quoting the Navy spokesperson calling the pirates 'chimps' - I think it was in the paragraph where they said :
"What you have got is a hostile situation with a bunch of pirates who are clearly unhappy....."

And I thought at the time, I wonder what reaction this will generate?

And it looks like the PC Brigade gave the newspaper a right old bolleauxing about how it is not on to refer to pirates as 'chimps', even in a quote from another source, and they subsequently had to to do a bit of editing and revert to calling the little darlings 'pirates' instead.

'Tis a strange world for sure.

 

[steveparker]

It might be worth considering that the captain of the vessel involved would almost definitely have been under direct orders not to endanger the lives of the hostages, and would possibly have faced imprisonment if one or both of them had died as a result of his deciding to intervene. Hostage extraction is a hugely specialised activity that people like the SAS train for continually, using accurate reconstructions of premises etc prior to engaging in an actual operation. If a RN captain without either the training or the authority or any suitably trained personnel at his disposal decided to act upon his own initiative, and the lives of UK citizens were lost as a result, I doubt anyone would be slapping him on the back for it. It must be pretty agonising having to stand there and watch, and I bet they would have just loved to have a go, but ultimately the reality would be that their hands were comprehensively tied. That's my understanding at least.

No sense in blaming the captain. If anyone disagrees with the rules of engagement, then that's more of a political thing issued from on high.

Steve.

 

[oldfatgit]

In all hostage situations, caution is the only option. The situation would have been as if on rounding the corner during the Iranian Embassy siege, the crew of a Tesco Delivery Van had mounted a hostage rescue operation; clearly ludicrous. RFAs deploy with self protection, not highly trained special forces able to mount an instant operation to free the captives. Indeed the very best special forces would probably have stood back and allowed the situation to stabilise by allowing the hostages to have been taken to the mother ship without intervention. The crew are alive and are likely to end up alive at the end of this and, furthermore, may even get their Rival back seeing as it was recovered by the RFA.

Imagine the headlines, “Hostages killed in botched rescue attempt by civilian crew”. If you don't know the nature of the Royal Fleet Auxiliary then use Google and find out. In this case ignorance is a mark of idleness.

 

[Searush]

"A right to self-defence"

Hmm, so if the RFA had interfered with the pirates' escape, & they had opened fire in panic, then the response would have been self-defence wouldn't it? I'm sure this sort of scenario has been used before to justify the use of force in an "iffy" situation.

A friend of mine (former bobby - not a forumite) used to quote the "Ways & Means Act 1944" as a way of enforcing stuff that was sensible rather than legal. There are Ways & Means of doing almost anything if you need to. I still think they needed to.

 

[David_Jersey]

I've got to log off now but in the meantime, can anyone come up with a reasonable plan of what could have been done to rescue the Chandlers, given the scenario we have?

Domestically you have major differences, an ability to contain a situation, have time on your side and dealing with folks (vaguely) on the same wave length. And in those circumstances I am sure that overall playing nice generates the best option.........with the spin off that folks involved can follow procedures to CYA if the outcome is not favourable.

What could the Captain have done? Grown some b#llocks and advised his superiors that he was engaging - unless he was ordered otherwise by Lord Horatio Nelson. In person.

If the hostages were still on the yacht he could have brought the Wave Knight alongside and dismasted her. If that did not work secure her by the mast (grappling hooks - if not too sharp to have onboard ). In either scenario I would look to fire into the Skiffs to remove an option for the pirates and also into the cockpit of the yacht to disable her further, to encourage a surrender, and to attempt a controlled sinking of the yacht. Drop a scramble net over the side and maybe a couple of liferafts for both the pirates and hostages to use when the yacht sinks.

If the hostages were already in the skiffs I would sink the destination vessel - 30mm cannon at the waterline should do the trick. Those skiffs were not in range of the shoreline, sooner or later they could be swamped.......and survivors picked up.

Obviously a risk to both the Wave Knight and her crew and to the Hostages - but that's life on the high seas when dealing with pirates. South of Dover it ain't all about health & safety

It truly is so sad that Britain has sunk so low

 

[longjohnsilver]

Those of the politically-correct, do nothing, think of the elfensafety school of thought, which seems to include the naval top-brass, might wish to reflect on what the Chandlers must have thought.

They're being attacked by half a dozen towel-heads in a skiff, when they are joined by a sodding great naval vessel carrying 1 x Merlin helicopter, 26 Marines, 2 x 30mm cannon, 4 x 7.62 machine guns, a collection of fast ribs and launches and an armoury full of small arms and ammunition. I reckon they probably thought "Thank God, We're saved". They probably imagined that someone aboard would have sufficient initiative, bottle and tactical ingenuity to rescue them from their plight; perhaps by cutting off the skiff from its mothership, perhaps by swamping it, perhaps by seizing the mothership or perhaps by putting a rib full of marines alongside and facing them down. At least having a go.

I think they might have been a tad disappointed when the Navy just sat and watched while they were taken away.

Slight understatement. Couldn't have put it better myself.

 

[steveparker]

If the hostages were already in the skiffs I would sink the destination vessel - 30mm cannon at the waterline should do the trick.

I'm pretty sure the media stated that quite a few other hostages were thought to be aboard the destination vessel.

Steve.

 

[David_Jersey]

I'm pretty sure the media stated that quite a few other hostages were thought to be aboard the destination vessel.

Not "ours" .......but in any event even if the Chandlers themselves were onboard I would still use the 30mm to sink / disable that vessel. Wouldn't blow it out of the water and it may sink unexpectedly - but the idea being to communicate to the Pirates by actions as well as words that they were not going anywhere, doing nothing had a good chance of getting dead from drowning and that surrender was the best option.......if that didn't work pick up the survivors from the water (those still armed get shot - fish in a barrel).

To be honest even if the Hostages all died - to my eyes that woudn't make it a disaster. However, sitting with your thumb up yer ar#e is beyond a disaster for the Navy - it's an embarrassment for the Country and actually makes the lives of British citizens abroad more dangerous by providing encouragement (and amusement) to our enemies. On this performance the Navy would be better off kept in port to avoid shooting the country in the foot.

Sitting here behind my keyboard all seems very straightforward

 

[halfway]

To hell

steveparker: You win the prize for the most realism here. That is the second use of a hostage. How does an individual qualify for that role, easy: Everyone confirms that monetarily they are worthless. With friends like that who needs enemies?

I hereby publicly declare that if captured by terrorist backed criminals anyone can blow me (and the terrorists) to hell with the biggest missile available. I will not live my life thinking the money used to recover me was used to purchase more arms or explosives to kill others.

Now how do I make sure the terrorist know that?

 

[Black_jack]

it is partly about knowing your adversary. The 'pirates' have allowed the hostages to phone home and there are several records of hostages stating in calls that they are being well treated, backed up on release.

Surely an intimidating presence like the RFA could have at least tried the tacktick of 'release all hostages now and we will let you proceed unharmed' or, we will sink you irrespective of the consequences.

I suspect faced with the choice the fishermen, nay pirates, may have taken what they could get

it doesn't have to be do or die every time to get a result.

 

[grumpy_o_g]

What a bunch of pathetic, useless, pusillanimous good for nothings...

And I refer both to both the pathetic excuses for human beings that did nothing and those defending their lack of action on here and elsewhere.

The Chandlers are still captives, the pirates are still out there taking more hostages and a message has been sent that, as long as there's the slightest risk to a hostage, no-one will do anything.

At the same time the government says "we will not bow to the pirate's demand and pay ransoms" - how does that square with not puttng their lives in danger?

Nobody appears to think it's acceptable to put the Chandler's lives at risk to get at the pirates but I dis-agree. It's unfortunate that they were in the wrong place at the wrong time but, if the law is to be enforced, we have to accept the risks. You can't sit back and say it's someone's else's job and then tie their hands by saying "oh, and make sure no-one gets hurt". Life doesn't work like that - and god knows people are quick enough to complain when it's not safe to sail the high seas.

As far I'm concerned the Captain of the RFA vessel missed a golden opportunity to take control of the situation and his behaviour should be subject to review with a view to court martial - at the very least he should be replaced with somebody who can actually capitalise on incredibly rare opportunities like this. Once the hostages were secured aboard the mother ship any chance of controlling the situation was lost.

I don't know where this talk of snipers comes from but it's obviously not from someone who's tried to shoot at a target that's moving steadily never mind bouncing up and down in a skiff. The classic option would be to put the pirates in a position where you have to give them something in order for them to get away - give yourselves a bargaining chip. Disable their vessel somehow - do something to put pressure on them even if it's just firing somewhere near them - anything so they have to ask you to stop - of course they'll threaten to kill the hostages - that's their only bargaining point but already you're in control. They've had to ask you.

As for the rest of the utter **** talked here and in the Lounge. The RFA vessel is a military ship on operations - if you aren't trained to deal with the very conditions you've been sent to combat WTF are you doing there? If the civilians can't cope get some that can or replace them with Navy personnel and let them actually take action like real soldiers instead of checking with their political officer first.

Why the hell hasn't that mother ship got a nice little hole in the side - just enough to sink it? It's much harder to hold a gun to a hostages head while you're treading water.

I can't believe how pathetic this reaction is - so far we've had written tonight:

I'm sorry - I know I came to your war zone but I'm a civilian so I'm not playing any more.
I'm sorry - I know I'm on an operational mission to combat pirates who are taking hostages but I'm not trained to deal with er.. pirates who are taking hostages.
I'm sorry but I was busy doing something else more important than protecting British subjects.
I'm sorry but I can't open fire in case someone gets hurt.
I'm sorry but I'm not equipped for this - I've only got 25 service personnel, 30mm cannon, and assorted small arms, oh and a helicopter.



This whole bloody thing stinks to high heaven but, judging by some of the reactions here we are getting the government and forces that we deserve.

 

[purplerobbie]

I cant believe that Greenpeace can stop ships going about there business but a naval ship cant.
The ship should of been disabled in some way. It could of bought time to get the people into position who could of assaulted the ship in some way.

Now nobody knows where they are and what is happening with them.

As someone else said how are they in a better position now the government has said that they wont negotiate with the pirates but before that they said we dont want to risk there lives by trying to rescue them.

Rob

 

[sailaboutvic]

British navy what a laugh

British navy

Hey guys this thread could go on for every , poor Somalia this, poor Somalia that , these are not poor Somalia fish men at all .so bloody hell wake up .

And as for the British navy standing by and doing nothing , do it surprise me ?No , and please do get me more c**p about the guys on this ship wasn’t trained to deal with the pirates ,they didn’t have to attack the pirates , the pirates where on a small yacht maybe be doing 7 kts all they had to do was to delay them while help turn up . Instead they was ordered to do nothing in case some one get hurt , OH MY GOD isn’t it great to be British, another mess this government has got us into .

And now what is the British Gov doing ? Again nothing , well done Mr Brown , hey don’t forget to send them a tax return for 2009 .

Some one said on my other tread ( Somalia pirates) that we not got the man power to sent out there , well guys guess what ?we seen to have the man power to surround the UK with guy dress in all black scaring the life out of law abiding people cruising our own waters in the name of boarded control . Maybe we could send a few of them out there to help out .

 

[Marsupial]

Reading all of this and the media I am left with the uncomfortable feeling that the real issue is that the hostages in this case had "no commercial value" to quote the FO. Which does then beg the question why was a navy unit down there anyway or did it find itself in the wrong place at the wrong time, a mere spectator in the proceedings unable to do anything.

In any event the whole affair is a disgrace to theRN and the nation and has only served to strengthen the resolve of the pirates.