ARmy Rumour SErvice

Originally Posted by sandmanfez

How do you suppose they would gain control of the bridge, it's a restricted area and they would be challenged long before they reached it. Presumably you imagine them charging through the ship, guns blazing?
They'd be met by locked steel hatches and dead engines.
Its simply not a goer.

You forgot that the terrorists will all turn up with cutting gear, shaped charges, ex-CIA computer boffins and Erika Eleniak in a cake...


At which point these somewhat well prepared desperados decide to call it a day when Barnacle Bill and the Three Stooges hove into view in their P2000...

Originally Posted by Dashing_Chap

If the terrorists have control of the bridge they can do whatever they want, ram other ships or crash into the port.

So a few RN/RNR in a 500 ton patrol ship aren't really going to be able to stop them if they don't want to?

Originally Posted by Dashing_Chap

How long is it going to take for the SBS to be flown in and get onboard a ferry? Unless the terrorists are daft enough to hijack the ferry halfway across the English Channel then there’s probably not much time, a more realistic tactic for the terrorists would be to take the ferry when it’s a few miles out of port. If this is the case then it’s more convenient for a rescue team to be flown in from the port or local area so as to cut the reaction time.

Which would be great if we had enough SAS/SBS to have a team in every port just in case but we don't. This isn't the kind of thing that your average infanteer could do, never mind your average sailor. If terrorists are that willing to cause destruction that they're going to ram a 30,000 ton ferry into a port then do we really want some non-SF types playing Hooligan with a few hundred women and kids between them and the terrorists?

Originally Posted by Dashing_Chap

If a dedicated Coastguard were in place there could be 10-15 men standing by as part of a rescue team, these guys could be regular Coastguard and about as fit as regular plod with training in boarding ops.

But not SF.

Originally Posted by Dashing_Chap

They could have a monthly exercise in boarding at a random time day/night to keep them on their toes and they could use an RFA ship or any other vessel which wishes to take part.

Which wouldn't make them SF.

Originally Posted by Dashing_Chap

They don’t necessarily have to storm the whole ship in a hostage scenario, that’s their call I guess, the essential thing is to regain control of the bridge. Once control of the bridge is established then special forces can be called in to deal with securing the ship.

The bridge probably wouldn't need to be secured since they have big steel doors. Besides which, any military action against the terrorists on the bridge (assuming they somehow get there) probably leaves a number of very pissed off terrorists with nothing to lose, a large supply of firearms and ammunition and a large number of civilians. I wonder what will happen next?

Originally Posted by Dashing_Chap

The alternative is having a ferry full of passengers smash into a port causing a major catastrophe because there wasn’t enough time to react. In this case I’d rather have some amateurs try to retake control of the bridge than have the Harbour Master warn the terrorists off with obscene language on the VHF.

Yes, far better having the ferry crash into the port after some non-SF types have had a crack and failed because it turns out that doing an APWT and climbing onto an RFA once a month doesn't make you Andy McNab.

Originally Posted by Yokel

History shows that Submarines were developed as a counter to Britain's sea power - ironically though the boats of the Irish American John Philip Holland were used by the Royal Navy, not against it. In both World War the Germans used U boats to make up for the lack of a large force of major surface warships - or being stuck in port post Jutland in WW1. Similarly the aeroplane was introduced into warfare for reece purposes, then fighters emerged to deal with enemy aircraft photographing your trenches, then they started dropping bombs as an alternative to artillery.

I am not sufficiently educated to talk about manouverism, merely I tried to make three points:

1. A non state actor such as a terrorist will seek to use any means they can get their hands on - including sophisticated weapons that would be considered tools of conventional warfare.

2. States may well used asymmetric tactics alongside conventional ones - hence the term hybrid warfare.

3. Technology is therefore needed to counter these threats.

I think serious threats are best dealt with at long range. This is where all three services operate. The major maritime threats to UK interests are in places like the Gulf of Aden, Persian/Arabian Gulf, South Atlantic.....



We're trying to get it back from the RAF?

Seriously - what do you propose? Putting small patrol craft (like these ones) at every port to escort shipping in and out of port? What would that actually achieve - given the problems that the terrorist will have in building his boat bomb in the UK - and the very real probability that the police would nab him first? Perhaps having armed helicopters (Lynx/Merlin with HMG) at various points would make more sense as they are faster.

Or did you mean larger patrol vessels - like these? Large enough to have a decent endurance/range, and with seakeeping qualities so that boat operations are feasible. Lacking in firepower though, and with limited command, control, or indeed communications facilities.

Or something like this?

What actually is it that you propsse that these vessels actually do?

I appreciate the response and I have absolutely no intention of being provocative but I don't see why any of your points 1 to 3 are at odds with my contention that we need a range of response options in the armoury. Technology is an aid but, if it was the entire answer, we'd have won in Afghanistan years ago. Increasing presence increases effectiveness, even if only by shortening response time, though there is also deterrent effect, complicating planning etc etc. Whatever the shortcomings of vessels you describe, they are exceeded by the shortcomings of having no vessel at all.

Apologies for the delayed response - where I am comms are tricky and they have learned from experience to apply on land what I am advocating to be applied on sea.

Originally Posted by jimmys_best_mate

So a few RN/RNR in a 500 ton patrol ship aren't really going to be able to stop them if they don't want to?



Which would be great if we had enough SAS/SBS to have a team in every port just in case but we don't. This isn't the kind of thing that your average infanteer could do, never mind your average sailor. If terrorists are that willing to cause destruction that they're going to ram a 30,000 ton ferry into a port then do we really want some non-SF types playing Hooligan with a few hundred women and kids between them and the terrorists?



But not SF.



Which wouldn't make them SF.



The bridge probably wouldn't need to be secured since they have big steel doors. Besides which, any military action against the terrorists on the bridge (assuming they somehow get there) probably leaves a number of very pissed off terrorists with nothing to lose, a large supply of firearms and ammunition and a large number of civilians. I wonder what will happen next?



Yes, far better having the ferry crash into the port after some non-SF types have had a crack and failed because it turns out that doing an APWT and climbing onto an RFA once a month doesn't make you Andy McNab.

Except, let's talk military heresy for a moment and assume, on the basis of empirical evidence, that SF are generally an expensive waste of space on the basis that they promise politicians cut-price victory on the cheap with zero casualties in return for an unacceptable portion of the defence budget and, more often than not, fail to deliver. If you want to know why politicians are casualty averse, a large part of it is because they've had assorted Jedi telling them that 'there is another way' and this is now a generally accepted view that they dare not challenge. If you want risk-free contacts, dream on, SF or not, as the SBS have recently found out through no failure of professionalism. Why, in your view, can only 'SF' play in this game and what's the point of the rest of the armed forces if this is the case?

Originally Posted by FORMER_FYRDMAN

Why, in your view, can only 'SF' play in this game and what's the point of the rest of the armed forces if this is the case?

If you're on a ferry with your family and it's taken by terrorists would you rather see Andy McNab and his very special mates who have passed the most strenuous military courses on the planet and receive the very best in weapons, kit and training that the country can provide for them coming over the rail to rescue you or would you rather see Pte Fucknuts from the local Mess Tin Repair Squadron's bedding store?

What's the point of the rest of the Armed Forces? So far as I'm aware the SAS/SBS aren't too strong in mechanised battlegroups, submarine driving and they can't even fly Typhoons.

Originally Posted by jimmys_best_mate

If you're on a ferry with your family and it's taken by terrorists would you rather see Andy McNab and his very special mates who have passed the most strenuous military courses on the planet and receive the very best in weapons, kit and training that the country can provide for them coming over the rail to rescue you or would you rather see Pte Fucknuts from the local Mess Tin Repair Squadron's bedding store?

What's the point of the rest of the Armed Forces? So far as I'm aware the SAS/SBS aren't too strong in mechanised battlegroups, submarine driving and they can't even fly Typhoons.

With the exception of Princess Gate, where they had everything on their side, I'm not aware of any counter-terrorist operation involving the SAS where the ability to shoot the balls off a bat at 1,000 metres has made the slightest difference. In fact, the most famous SAS Op of recent years was an horrendous cluster and predicted to be so by someone whom that illustrious unit promptly fired when he made the only sensible operational call.

The idea that conflict can be pain free and low cost is a dangerous one peddled by UKSF for some time now at huge cost to any wider military effort. The reality is that the Gambia and Dhofar don't matter and that, despite our much vaunted SF (and that of the Americans), we've lost in Iraq and Afghanistan, which do.

Originally Posted by FORMER_FYRDMAN

With the exception of Princess Gate, where they had everything on their side, I'm not aware of any counter-terrorist operation involving the SAS where the ability to shoot the balls off a bat at 1,000 metres has made the slightest difference. In fact, the most famous SAS Op of recent years was an horrendous cluster and predicted to be so by someone whom that illustrious unit promptly fired when he made the only sensible operational call.

It's not just the ability to shoot though, is it? It's the whole package which SF soldiers have which your average squaddie or sailor don't. If any one was capable of doing the job they wouldn't be paying £20 odd a day SF pay (or whatever it is).

Who mentioned conflict being 'loss free'? We're not talking about conflict, we're talking about a passenger ferry being taken by terrorists. Not the kind of job you call your local TA Signal Squadron in for, no matter how many of them have really good APWT scores.

Originally Posted by jimmys_best_mate

It's not just the ability to shoot though, is it? It's the whole package which SF soldiers have which your average squaddie or sailor don't. If any one was capable of doing the job they wouldn't be paying £20 odd a day SF pay (or whatever it is).

Who mentioned conflict being 'loss free'? We're not talking about conflict, we're talking about a passenger ferry being taken by terrorists. Not the kind of job you call your local TA Signal Squadron in for, no matter how many of them have really good APWT scores.

And, I would respectfully submit, beyond the capability of any SF. We have made a fetish of SF but it should now be clear to anyone with half a brain that they are unable to positively influence any major conflict independently of any other effort. They are useful shock forces for a decisive local effect in a limited conflict - end of.