Telegraph: "Inland Somali Pirate Bases To Be Targeted"

#4
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:
#5
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.
 
#6
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.
 
#8
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.
Doesn't leave a lot then does it ... land based strike aircraft carrying humongous amounts of 1000lb bombs ... yep that'll do it!
 
#9
Doesn't leave a lot then does it ... land based strike aircraft carrying humongous amounts of 1000lb bombs ... yep that'll do it!
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
 
#10
I rather suspect that you are interpreting the limits too widely.
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!
 
#11
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!
Sorry MG - missed the subtlety. On the other hand, fiendish RAF plot does have a recurring theme to it!
 
#12
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????
 
#13
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.
 
#17
Due to cutbacks in the munitions spending account, the bombs that we will be dropping will only be this big ..
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!
 
#20
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.
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

New Posts

Top