| [−] |
| [−] |
| [−] |
Comments and e-mails are welcome, but all such communication is to be assumed to be 1) the original work of any who initiate said communication and 2) in the public domain, with free use granted for publication in electronic or written form. If you do NOT wish to have your message posted, write "CONFIDENTIAL" in the subject line of your email.
Original content copyright © 2006 by the respective authors. Fair, not-for-profit use of said material by others is encouraged, as long as acknowledgement and credit is given, to include the url of the original source post. Other arrangements can be made as needed.
Site contact: greyhawk at mudvillegazette dot com
General Peter Pace will be replaced as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. I can't help but wonder if this Army wife had something to do with the decision.
Seriously, we wish General Pace well.
Salamander, mon frère- I think we find ourselves in violent agreement on most issues.
My arguments regarding international law (of which I generally hold a very jaundiced view) and what I suspect are the ROE governing ops off Somalia are not that the rules are right, but rather that if you know you are going "hunting pirates" that the skids should be greased for "hot pursuit" well before you find yourself facing a captured merchant ship with hostages. Lay the diplomatic foundation first or announce ahead of time that which you suggest - that due to Somalia's inability to control its own waters, others will step in as needed. I can see no reason why such a decision should be left a CO to make on the spot. Although, if it was- then I think in this case the CO of Carter Hall made the right call.
I vigorously disagree that once hostages are taken in a situation in which a pattern has been established that it may be better to take the risk of having the hostages killed rather than let them be kept by the pirates awaiting ransom. I am certain that if I were one of the Danish crew of Danica White I'd appreciate you not making your point of defending freedom of seas with my life.
Which leads me to my real point, which is one of prevention of ship captures instead of the tail chasing "hostage rescues." To that end:
If I were the "anti-pirate" king, I'd offer up a voluntary convoy system for shipping entering into what long has been labeled a "danger zone" off Somalia. If no one on active duty remembers how to do convoy ops, I still remember how from my days in Naval Coordination and Protection of Shipping (or whatever it is now known as) and will volunteer to come back and help work the problem, though I also know that many NATO forces still have both the personnel and knowledge to do it if asked/tasked. In a similar vein, I have long argued for escorting UN food ships headed to Somalia. I am amazed that the UN has not sought coalition help in getting food to the thousands of starving innocents whose lives are threatened by these pirates.
A little forehandedness would go a long way in preventing ship captures.
Speaking of which, I understand the small ship shortage issue. I fail to see how sending lumbering amphibs (no disrespect intended) without other, faster, more appropriate assets is helping the problem. Why there aren't a a few Intermarine MV85s operating with an LSD is beyond me. Or why there aren't armed helicopter assets to respond to distress calls before a ship is taken by pirates?
Let me plan the next "pirate troll" and I promise to come back with scalps. But first let me take care of the handcuffs of international law and have access to something other than low speed high drag ships armed, essentially, with popguns. If we are serious about hunting pirates and terrorists at sea, let's develop a "hunter-killer" group armed with proper tools.
Went through Chinfo's alphabetical list of U.S. Navy ships and culled out the USNS, MV, submarines, minesweepers, amphibious ships and cruisers to get to the numbers of "destroyers" and "frigates" and "coastal patrol" ships. There are 86 ships listed below the break, 9 of which are PCs the remaining 77 being DDG or FFG.
I'm sure the list is probably not completely accurate, but assuming 1/3 deployed, 1/3 in workup or standown and 1/3 in yard or RAV, there's a lot of ocean being "covered" by too few ships.
We should be spending some serious money on small ships like the aforementioned MV85s and developing a "sea base" mothership (gee, like a destroyer tender?) for ops like pirate hunts and other littoral fun.
I have returned. Not quite MacArthur going ashore in the Phillipines, but the News is back nonetheless. Go here to find out more about French cuisine vs Afghan bureaucrats, murder most foul, mosques serving as vaccination centers and defiance of the Talib through volleyball.
I personally wouldn't say "sacrificed to the altar of LCS and DDX" as I would "we didn't buy small ships". Hi-low mix never won the battle against the high-only guys, and our smallboy numbers were in foul shape long before LCS showed up. Heck, even DDG-51 started life on paper as FFG-51 until they decided it needed antiair. I'm just wondering how much risk we've thought we took, versus how much we actually took, building fewer ships which are capable but not everywhere at once.
Although I admit DDX née DD21 née SC21 has been around about forever, and how big is that thing again?
Site design and management: Mrs Greyhawk
Original content copyright © 2006 by the respective authors
