High Seas Piracy

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

Odd that the buzzwords in the army are flexibility and adaptability to changing threats, whereas the Navy want two massive ships for in ill defined purpose - more strange when the old aircraft carriers were viewed as too large and these are larger...

---

there purpose is VERY well defined.

it was the centre-piece of the Strategic Defence Review in 1998, and later confirmed in the 2003 update; SDA: New Chapter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

1. They are (as far as I am aware) made of aluminium. So any exocet or newer missile will cause aluminium to combust in water. So effectively one hit can sink the entire ship, unless you can stop this process... oh, which releases hydrogen which is also explosive.

2. Supporting hostile beaches? With AA missiles and gun batteries, and planes? And almost no ability to repair damaged planes?

3. So, the UK basically is unable to single handedly deal with any relatively equipped [[navy???]]for as even one stray missile or torpedo (oh, I forgot torpedoes!) could sink a ship - possibly regardless of size.

4. Purpose? Taking on to put it bluntly, weaker navies at sea - pirates, drug smugglers and so on. Intelligence gathering. But not to go close to a hostile shore with aggressive intent as we can't build them as fast as we'd loose them.

5. It's useful to be able to quickly move men to the land in certain situations, but the UK can't adequately "passify" the landing area to do so if it's contested by anything resembling a modern army.

6. I know there's no will. It's like getting new nuclear weapons - or even Trident over Polaris. It gives the appearance of strength as long as you don't think too long about it.

---

1. Where did you get the idea that the hulls and superstructure will be constructed from aluminium? :inquisitive:

2. planes that are seriously damaged crash, ones that are not do not. people have been operating carriers successfully for over 75 years without anyone yet realising that the whole idea is redundant because broken aircraft don't fly.

3. In that case no-ones navy is any use, with the possible exception of the US. The point of aircraft carriers is theat they allow you to attack/detect them before they can attack/detect you.

4. well duh, we don't want to take on a stronger navy, so yes, aircraft carriers do allow us to give weaker navies a good shoeing. two points, a) only the US navy is stronger, and b) carriers do much much more than just allow us to shoe everyone elses navy.

5. we have the second largest amphibious capability in the world, by quite some margin, but yes it is small. however, it is not the job of the navy or the marines to take on 100,000 strong armies, rather it is make opposed landings to secure beachheads which allow the landing of army units.

6. nukes prevent anyone ever contemplating industiral war against the UK, a war we would be hard pushed to defend against.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

there purpose is VERY well defined.

it was the centre-piece of the Strategic Defence Review in 1998, and later confirmed in the 2003 update; SDA: New Chapter.

---

"To meet our longer term needs, we plan to replace our current carriers from around 2012 by two larger, more versatile, carriers capable of carrying a more powerful force, including a future carrier borne aircraft to replace the Harrier. These plans will now be developed in detail in the normal way."


Yeah, right.

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

1. Where did you get the idea that the hulls and superstructure will be constructed from aluminium? :inquisitive:

2. planes that are seriously damaged crash, ones that are not do not. people have been operating carriers successfully for over 75 years without anyone yet realising that the whole idea is redundant because broken aircraft don't fly.

3. In that case no-ones navy is any use, with the possible exception of the US. The point of aircraft carriers is theat they allow you to attack/detect them before they can attack/detect you.

4. well duh, we don't want to take on a stronger navy, so yes, aircraft carriers do allow us to give weaker navies a good shoeing. two points, a) only the US navy is stronger, and b) carriers do much much more than just allow us to shoe everyone elses navy.

5. we have the second largest amphibious capability in the world, by quite some margin, but yes it is small. however, it is not the job of the navy or the marines to take on 100,000 strong armies, rather it is make opposed landings to secure beachheads which allow the landing of army units.

6. nukes prevent anyone ever contemplating industiral war against the UK, a war we would be hard pushed to defend against.

---

1. Ship that was destroyed in Falklands. If steel is the preferred material then mea culpa
2. Yes... so ther rate of attrittion would have to be almost non existant before you're left with an empty carrier looking rather foolish
3. Other navies: India, China spring to mind. Odds of hiding an aircraft carrier and planes from satelites with IR or even goold old Radar aren't likely. If they can'd to this I'd argue the aircraft carriers are overkill
4. As you point out most navies are weaker - most to the extent that a Destroyer or cruiser could singlehandedly give them a good shoeing. Why the overkill? Carriers do more... yup, we can fly planes over places - as long as they're not hostile places of course.
5. The loss of life would be so hideous taking an opposed beach the force would be crippled to the point of needing a full refit. America has the facilities to adequately back up the force. It seems most other forces have realised that this isn't a worthwhile area to spend money on.
6. Yes. My point was that since Polaris they've done that. Spending billions more on newer ones is a waste.

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

from teh article:

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


does that help answer the question as to why people think pirates are baddies, and why such unrestrained action is permissable against them?

---

Oh no, piracy is wrong of course. However, there are greater evils to challenge if one is feeling the need to do so. These Somalian pirates are merely the flavor of the week.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

"To meet our longer term needs, we plan to replace our current carriers from around 2012 by two larger, more versatile, carriers capable of carrying a more powerful force, including a future carrier borne aircraft to replace the Harrier. These plans will now be developed in detail in the normal way."

Yeah, right.

---

nice, you read the precis.

the point being that the whole of the UK's strategic doctrine is based around mobile forces, amphibious capability, and carrier support for that amphibious and mobile capability.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

1. [1]Yes... so ther rate of attrittion would have to be almost non existant before you're left with an empty carrier looking rather foolish
   [2]Other navies: India, China spring to mind. Odds of hiding an aircraft carrier and planes from satelites with IR or even goold old Radar aren't likely. If they can'd to this I'd argue the aircraft carriers are overkill
   [3]As you point out most navies are weaker - most to the extent that a Destroyer or cruiser could singlehandedly give them a good shoeing. Why the overkill? Carriers do more... yup, we can fly planes over places - as long as they're not hostile places of course.
   [4]The loss of life would be so hideous taking an opposed beach the force would be crippled to the point of needing a full refit. America has the facilities to adequately back up the force. It seems most other forces have realised that this isn't a worthwhile area to spend money on.
   [5]Yes. My point was that since Polaris they've done that. Spending billions more on newer ones is a waste.

---

so you, arm-chair general rory have decided in your wisdom that you can better outline the UK's strategic capabilities than the MOD?

1. the obvious solution is to use carriers in combinartion with intelligence so as they do not come into WW2 pacific style battles

2. are you telling me that things are going to get more difficult? no kidding, but somebody with a lot of stars on his collar came to the conclusion that carriers are still worth it.

3. that is what good military practice is about, massive overmatch which reduces losses in the event of conflict, this ain't queensbury rules. and lots of other nations are thinking seriously about having carriers too, so its less a case of overmatch rather than keeping up with the joneses.

4. you think so do you? so you forget the falklands and sierra leonne. opposed landing is still relevant with current theory stating that helicopter forces go in first, followed by RM's in landing ships, then backed up by the bay class, finally using the ro-ro's for army units once a secure dock has been established.

5. we don't make the missiles, so when the US changes missiles (i.e. to trident) we have to as well as we don't have the facilities to maintain them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alexander the Pretty Good

Oh no, piracy is wrong of course. However, there are greater evils to challenge if one is feeling the need to do so. These Somalian pirates are merely the flavor of the week.

---

oh i agree, which is why i wish to see pirates status as scum maintained, thus allowing anybody and everybody to do anything they please to fend off pirate attacks

For what? It appears that the first decision was "let's get two massive ships" then the "thinking" appeared afterwards.

Our mobile forces are too weak to protect the homeland from a threat, with only two large carriers unable to be spread thinly and are there to act swiftly against a threat from a sufficiently weak power lest the lack of military preperation in depth becomes apparent... And this is "strategic thinking"??? :inquisitive:

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

If anything, I loved the formality of the language! It felt like a warm bath.
There was some irony intended in me, as a non-native speaker, accusing an English speaker of not applying proper English when he is, in fact, writing in perfect, schooled English. :2thumbsup:

---

I understood your ironic humor, Louis. Tu es tres drole!

Besides, if I did not appreciate irony, I could never remain a Republican.

Wait...since when do these pirates use exocets and torpedoes? :inquisitive:

And since when does a third world country have the means to shoot down modern carrier aircraft like flies?

Did I miss a big change of topic or are you just overlooking that when a frigate guards a convoy it may take some time to reach a ship that spotted a bunch of pirates late while airplanes can quickly reach anything and provide air cover and recon missions to combat pirates more effectively. On the downside(upside for you bloodthirsty people) aircraft can hardly arrest pirates, only kill them, unless we're talking helicopters (which can be stationed on some frigates as well).

Quote:

---

Wait...since when do these pirates use exocets and torpedoes?

---

There is a very big arms market in Somalia , and while exocets amnd torpedoes might be unavailable there are plenty of other missiles on sale over there . So all the pirates need to do is spend some of their money

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

For what? It appears that the first decision was "let's get two massive ships" then the "thinking" appeared afterwards.

Our mobile forces are too weak to protect the homeland from a threat, with only two large carriers unable to be spread thinly and are there to act swiftly against a threat from a sufficiently weak power lest the lack of military preperation in depth becomes apparent... And this is "strategic thinking"??? :inquisitive:

---

no, you have the cart before the horse. the decision was to maintain a force that could intervene, and support that intervention. hence:
mobile forces
strategic airlift
amphibious ability
aircraft carriers

our conventional forces don't have to protect the homeland, we have nukes that ensure no-one ever conducts conventional warfare against the UK.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

Did I miss a big change of topic or are you just overlooking that when a frigate guards a convoy it may take some time to reach a ship that spotted a bunch of pirates late while airplanes can quickly reach anything and provide air cover and recon missions to combat pirates more effectively. On the downside(upside for you bloodthirsty people) aircraft can hardly arrest pirates, only kill them, unless we're talking helicopters (which can be stationed on some frigates as well).

---

no-one is suggesting we use aircraft carriers for use on pirates, rory was just getting carried away with himself.

and yes, frigates with helicopters are just the thing for anti-pirate operations, for exactly the same reasons we always use a helicopter capable vessel for the Caribbean patrol for anti drug-running patrols.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

Other navies: India, China spring to mind. Odds of hiding an aircraft carrier and planes from satelites with IR or even goold old Radar aren't likely. If they can'd to this I'd argue the aircraft carriers are overkill

---

I'd like to point out that the Indian Navy has an air craft carrier the INS Viraat (ex HMS Hermes) and is in the precess of replacing it with the Russian built INS Vikramaditya (ex Admiral Gorshkov) after it comes out of a refit. And is planning to build one domestically. China is also planning a carrier i believe.

I agree with Tribesman here - Ignore it until;

A. it affects US trade more than it does our rivals.
B. it affects US lives
C. There is an international humanitarian disaster
D. the pagan heathen pirate booty begins filtering into the hands of international islamic terrorists.

A bit of high powered, 3rd world anarcho-capitalism in the Indian Ocean won't hurt the US, and I'm not sure that it would hurt Somalia either.

The US governement should make the waterways safe for US trade ships. Let the pirates have as much European, Russian, Indian and Chinese loot as those countries will allow them to have before they all collectively decide to solve a problem on the ground for once. Maybe we would sign on after the fact.

It is simply not worth it for us to spearhead this. Goods from other countries rise in price, our goods stay the same. Somalis arn't starving as much either and have a lucrative option to distract them from al-qaeda. Win-Win for the U.S.

Lets not forget, we hired the US govt. They shouldn't solve problems in other countries unless people are dying en masse, our interests are hurting, or we want them to do something.]

Aybody else wants action? That's what you hire your own governements for.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

The US governement should make the waterways safe for US trade ships. Let the pirates have as much European, Russian, Indian and Chinese loot as those countries will allow them to have before they all collectively decide to solve a problem on the ground for once. Maybe we would sign on after the fact.

---

Remember when we didn't deal with the pirates during Bush's presidency, and then the pirates attacked a U.S. freighter? What stops it from happening again?

It is our obligation, as a signer of the North Atlantic Treaty, to come to the aid of our allies who have been attacked. An attack on one is an attack on all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KarlXII

Remember when we didn't deal with the pirates during Bush's presidency, and then the pirates attacked a U.S. freighter? What stops it from happening again?

It is our obligation, as a signer of the North Atlantic Treaty, to come to the aid of our allies who have been attacked. An attack on one is an attack on all.

---

We should help patrol the region. No ground action spearheaded by the U.S. I'd love to see Europe start this thing on their own, seeing how it is having a larger effect on them. We could even be junior partners on it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

We should help patrol the region. No ground action spearheaded by the U.S.

---

And why not? I do not see why a joint effort can't be made in Somalia as with Afghanistan.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KarlXII

And why not? I do not see why a joint effort can't be made in Somalia as with Afghanistan.

---

Afghanistan is just a joint effort? From what I can tell it is a joint effort SPEARHEADED by the US (with a UK edge). This could be a joint effort SPEARHEADED by the EU. that means that instead of relying on the US (whose population is 306 mil) the EU (population 499 mil) shows some initiative and leads the way for once, particularly regarding a problem that affects them more than it does us (like the taliban/alqaeda affected the US MORE than the EU).

If you want us to stop treating you like our child, stop treating us like your daddy.

It would be awesome to feel like we had a 50/50 partnership with the EU

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

Afghanistan is a joint effort?

---

You obviously haven't been informed of anything about Afghanistan since I don't know when.

My point still stands, the U.S. has a responsibility to stop these pirates, not because they attack U.S. ships, because they attack all merchant ships.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KarlXII

My point still stands, the U.S. has a responsibility to stop these pirates, not because they attack U.S. ships, because they attack all merchant ships.

---

Your point is that the US should finance the defense of other peoples interests.

Sure, we will go to bat for universal values, but we need to see the same level of dedication out of your pocketbook as well. And none of this nancing and prancing, not sending combat troops to hot spots, that so many countries try to pull.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

Your point is that the US should finance the defense of other peoples interests.

---

We haven't been doing that already? How much do you think it would cost for a combined force in Somalia compared to financing the defence of Iraqi interests?

The point is, the United States has the responsibility of defending her allies from future pirate attacks, I am highly supportive of a joint effort, as per Afghanistan, as the European navies are not shabby. The French are already responding to these attacks, why not us?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

We should help patrol the region. No ground action spearheaded by the U.S. I'd love to see Europe start this thing on their own, seeing how it is having a larger effect on them. We could even be junior partners on it.

---

You'll find that the EU has been patrolling for some time - the US has only woken up to the piracy because of this last incident.

The French (as part of the EU Task Force) have been chasing the pirates all over God's Creation.

Quote:

---

I agree with Tribesman here - Ignore it until;

---

Wow , thats the second person recently to invent my views .

Quote:

---

Afghanistan is just a joint effort?

---

Blimey , how many of the initial offers were not taken up becuase george wanted to go it alone ?

Quote:

---

You'll find that the EU has been patrolling for some time - the US has only woken up to the piracy because of this last incident.

---

You are being too kind Banquo , I would have ripped into the US failed intervention and then pointed to the increase in piracy since Americas proxy players moved in .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

There is a very big arms market in Somalia , and while exocets amnd torpedoes might be unavailable there are plenty of other missiles on sale over there . So all the pirates need to do is spend some of their money

---

Except that they rather send their money to families or invest it in some business so they can retire there and stop being pirates/poor/both. I don't really think they can fire anything really dangerous for an aircraft carrier from their paddle boats before the aircraft carrier can sink them. I don't even think they'd want to. They want money, not start an all-out war with any western nation by sinking a carrier. :dizzy2:

Actually I have the solution .
Its a simple solution really and quite cost effective .
Send in the French , not the French navy but the French fishermen .
Having just ended most of their blockade for a ransom payment of 4 million they should now sail off to the African coast and blockade every little port and jetty on the Somali coast , that will ensure that the Somali pirates can no longer put to sea and will have to seek other employment .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Actually I have the solution .
Its a simple solution really and quite cost effective .
Send in the French , not the French navy but the French fishermen .
Having just ended most of their blockade for a ransom payment of 4 million they should now sail off to the African coast and blockade every little port and jetty on the Somali coast , that will ensure that the Somali pirates can no longer put to sea and will have to seek other employment .

---

Genius. A plan with no downside. Worst case scenario the two groups of dissidents wipe each other out on the high seas.

Any survivors can then be shelled at leisure.

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost

You'll find that the EU has been patrolling for some time - the US has only woken up to the piracy because of this last incident.

The French (as part of the EU Task Force) have been chasing the pirates all over God's Creation.

---

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Task_Force_151

This was set up in January specifically for this purpose. We have been talking about the issue since God knows when. The American public has "woken up to it" recently because that is what publics do when something interesting happens.

Tribesman, what were you suggesting be done about the piracy problem? Were you suggesting that we begin a ground operation? Were you suggesting that we start attacking ships and escalating conflict? I could have sworn that you didn't think that either was a good option. From what I recall, you didn't think the piracy was a problem for the US and therefore the US should butt out - right?

When I said "ignore", i didn't mean pretend the problem doesn't exist - I just meant sit there and don't do anything about it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

You are being too kind Banquo , I would have ripped into the US failed intervention and then pointed to the increase in piracy since Americas proxy players moved in .

---

You don't mean that you would have blamed America for the piracy problem, do you? Not you - an ardent defender of the US? Since this is the first time you are blaming the US for everything under the sun (particularly for something so clearly caused by the US) people will take it seriously for once.

Tribes is one of those guys who curses the innaguration of GWB and the genocide of the American Indians every time he stubs his toe or burns a finger.