Telegraph: "Inland Somali Pirate Bases To Be Targeted"

Discussion in 'Current Affairs' started by soleil, Mar 23, 2012.

Welcome to the Navy Net aka Rum Ration

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial RN website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. If the Pirates weren't so busy counting their ransom money they might register a little concern over this latest plan.
  2. Seaweed

    Seaweed War Hero Book Reviewer

  3. But the use of ground troops or missiles strike launched from naval vessels will not be permitted after Germany and Spain expressed reservations over the expanded rules of engagement.
    Don't think they'll be that bothered given the above. Personally I'd send them a signed framed colour photograph of Baroness Ashton...That threat should be enough for them to cease piracy when they see what she looks like
    Last edited: Mar 23, 2012
    • Like Like x 1
  4. If we can't use missiles I suppose we'll have to rely on our carriers if the pirates would be so good as to hang on 10 years or so.
  5. Not being able to use ground troops or missiles strike from naval vessels is a nuisance but probably pragmatically sensible since the former would put us right into body bag territory and the latter has significant "collateral damage" implications. There are still a lot of spanners in the toolbox though, even without these options - and the decision can always be extended in light of experience going forward.

    This is a very positive step and should help to shift the whole thing up a gear or two.
  6. wet_blobby

    wet_blobby War Hero Moderator

    Bootnecks have already been ashore in Somalia.

    The option should be left on the table.
  7. Doesn't leave a lot then does it ... land based strike aircraft carrying humongous amounts of 1000lb bombs ... yep that'll do it!
  8. I rather suspect that you are interpreting the limits too widely. Missiles launched from naval vessels will not be allowed. Strike from organic air assets probably will - the difference will be whether the platform delivering the ordnance has "eyes on" target and short flash to bang window.

    Just a guess but that is how I would interpret the ROE limit
  9. Sorry Broadside ... my interpretation was definitely tongue-in-cheek - although it could be a fiendish plot by the RAF to give them something else to justify their existance! Although to be honest if the use of Ground Troops is out along with ship based missle stikes ... it doesn't leave a great deal to the imagination - but there again I'm only a humble doc and not versed in all the whoosh whizbangs that you lot play with!
  10. Sorry MG - missed the subtlety. On the other hand, fiendish RAF plot does have a recurring theme to it!
  11. Subtle??? Moi????? :D

    Mind having read the ROE again ... doesn't say we cant park just offshore and start lobbing HE 45 shells at 'em does it????
  12. I feel that Somalia is going to become our friend so I doubt that we will start lobbing expensive fireworks at her. Well, they may start more fires with all the blackstuff underground that we want.
  13. That would put the parrots at risk and is therefore wrong.

  14. You wouldn't believe the amount of ordnance that is destroyed because it is approaching it's 'use by date' or is too difficult to return to stock.... I'm sure we could find much better use for it!
  15. Seaweed

    Seaweed War Hero Book Reviewer

    Duffing the skiffs achieves nothing. Plenty of money for their replacement.
  16. I see the blatting of the skiffs more of a statement of intent rather than an attempt at preventing attacks Seaweed...seen to be done and all that.

Share This Page