Re: Re: Russians sending more force to Somalia

[Guest guest]

What I have thought we should do are:

1. Allow the Somalis the 200 mile resource limit recognized under maritime law. This would allow the fishermen plenty of sea to fish in. Any Somali vessels beyond that limit, however, would be destroyed without warning. Surface naval vessels could do most of the patrolling and escorting ships. Drones, like the Predator series, carrying Hellfire missiles or small guided bombs could handle the rest.

2. Attack captured vessels. The crew would be endangered no matter what method was used and it is always possible that they pirates could kill them if the ship is sunk. However, if their captured ships keep getting sunk regardless of the crew or how many pirates or Somali civilians were crammed on board, they would eventually figure out it isn't worth it.

3. Landing actions shouldn't be necessary. If we had more ships with real guns on them, we could bombard the harbors. Then again, a carrier-based plane dropping cluster bombs could shred every boat in port in no time.

4. Track down the pirate's business contacts and arrest them, or perhaps more easily make them disappear. If the pirates lost their negotiators and ability to sell stolen goods and buy new things, then their business would dry up.

Of course, this would mean being hard and willing to kill some civilians, because some fishermen would doubtless be killed and the pirates would use human shields. In the latter case in particular, the deaths of those people would be the fault of the pirates, not whoever dropped the weapons that killed them. I just don't think the US or Europe can be that hard.

In a message dated 11/25/2008 2:01:29 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, no_reply writes:

Well, we can all dream, anyway...One site has it all. Your email accounts, your social networks, and the things you love. Try the new AOL.com today!

[Guest guest]

True in theory, but it isn't working in practice. Once a few boats have been blown up, the legitimate fishermen will stay in Somali waters. The rest would pirates.

The submarine idea wouldn't really work. The pirates are mostly using speed boats and some slightly larger fishing boats as mother ships. Using a hugely expensive torpedo to sink a fiberglass outboard motor boat would be very cost ineffective. That is we need ships with guns so they could send a few comparatively cheap shells down range at the pirates. Even using Hellfire missile would be much cheaper.

In a message dated 11/25/2008 3:43:48 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, no_reply writes:

My problem with that is that Somalis ought to be as entitled to travel as anyone else. It's only a select population of them that are trouble makers. One site has it all. Your email accounts, your social networks, and the things you love. Try the new AOL.com today!

[Guest guest]

Not for a long time.

The US Navy only has nuclear boats, that we know of, that are huge, deep water machines. They are designed to kill large surface vessels like carrier and cruisers, or to fire cruise missiles at more distant targets. These boats can also be used for certain kinds of reconnaissance and to deploy small teams of SEALs and other operators. Still, they are very large, expensive and not very good in shallow water.

Even the diesel boats that I have seen in other navies don't have deck guns anymore because fighting on the surface isn't safe for a sub.

Surface vessels would be better at attacking the pirate ships. If we had some ships the size of WWII destroyers or destroyer leaders, that is about 3,000 tons, with lots of guns and some missiles, they could be effective. Some new generation, high rate of fire 3" guns are available as are low cost smart shells. I've also mentioned using Predator drones or others to drop bombs and Hellfire missiles. A Hellfire is about $58,000 per copy, but a MK48 torpedo is $2 million and up.

One plan by the US for the future is a swarm of drones, some spotting, some carrying weapons. We could do this now to an extent. These drones would have a very wide patrol area and would be nearly impossible to spot. The surface ships could provide close protection of larger ships or even convoys.

PS. Here are some stats on the Virginia class nuclear subs. This information is on target with my books.

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

In a message dated 11/25/2008 4:17:26 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, no_reply writes:

A silly question - but keep in mind I do not know much about subs - but don't they have surface mounted guns on any of them? Or guns in turrets which would allow them to surface and shoot some light caliber bullets at those smaller ships?Administrator One site has it all. Your email accounts, your social networks, and the things you love. Try the new AOL.com today!

[Guest guest]

That doesn't mean that they can't do it the old fashioned way...

Point, and advance to ramming speed.

Jesting, of course.

One other reason that boarding is difficult is that there are only

there are only three attack vectors, and all of them are tricky.