Warship fires on poachers

[sam76]

The Australian navy opened fire on an illegal fishing boat after it tried to ram a patrol boat and its crew threw machetes at sailors, Defence Minister Brendan Nelson said today.

Dr Nelson said the incident occurred in northern waters in the last month when the large, steel-hulled foreign fishing boat attempted to ram a patrolling naval vessel and refused to leave Australian waters.

"Missiles were thrown, including machetes, at Australian sailors and the chief of defence phoned me and asked me if they could undertake direct fire and I said 'yes they most certainly can','' Dr Nelson told reporters today.

Dr Nelson would not say what country the boat was from but said no-one was injured or taken into custody in the incident.

The West Australian newspaper reported today the navy had fired a short burst from a mounted gun, hitting an Indonesian vessel during a pursuit about a month ago.

The vessel had escaped to international waters after the incident, in which the navy had employed tough new rules of engagement aimed at driving illegal fishermen and people smugglers out of Australian waters, the newspaper reported.

Dr Nelson said the boat had not been seen in Australian waters since.

"Those people who come to Australia who want to steal our fish and breach our exclusive economic zone need to know that we are not going to muck about,'' Dr Nelson said.

"The Australian Navy is very serious in protecting our borders


I for one applaud this.

It's about time Australia got tough with Indo poachers.

 

[Nicks]

Yes but....


who is the Chief of Defence?

The Chief of Defence or Dr Nelson???

What qualification does Dr Nelson have to determine the rules of engagement? just proves it is controlled by political whims whic is scary.

The Chief of Defence should not have to phone a politician for approval. He has this senior position and is paid alot of money and should use his leadership to make the call. He should have, or no doubt has, the empowerment to do so. So why is he calling up a politician??? Maybe he should do that after the event sure.

 

[Knobby22]

If we are so tough, how come we let them get away? And how come politicians are making the call?

It obviously happened a while ago and is only now being brought to our attention as an election is due.

Show lousy government to me.

 

[Flying Fish]

I agree blow them out of the water they would do the same to us

 

[tech/a]

or taken into custody in the incident.

Un acceptable---Whimps!!

Australian Navy defeated by rusting JUNK and men throwing machetes!

Joke.

 

[numbercruncher]

Shows you how smart these folks are hey, attacking a warship with machetes! Sorta like me attacking Mike Tyson with my bare knuckles!

 

[Absolutely]

Yes but....


who is the Chief of Defence?

The Chief of Defence or Dr Nelson???

What qualification does Dr Nelson have to determine the rules of engagement? just proves it is controlled by political whims whic is scary.

The Chief of Defence should not have to phone a politician for approval. He has this senior position and is paid alot of money and should use his leadership to make the call. He should have, or no doubt has, the empowerment to do so. So why is he calling up a politician??? Maybe he should do that after the event sure.

Agree Nicks.

I am very close to the top military hierarchy in all three services including the CDF and I can tell you, most can't even go to the toilet without feeling they have to let the government know. The government is far too hands on when it comes to military and uses them in whatever way it can to make itself look good. It is clear also that the current CDF got the job for purely political reasons relating to Children Overboard rather then because he was particularly the best candidate.

 

[Flying Fish]

Un acceptable---Whimps!!

Australian Navy defeated by rusting JUNK and men throwing machetes!

Joke.

depends how big it is though, and what is in the hul

 

[wabbit]

Having recently exited from the Australian Defence Farce, I mean Force, it is reports like these that disturb me greatly.

Those who watch the Channel-x comedy on Thursday nights, Sea Patrol, will notice that whenever anything happens the CO picks up the satellite-phone and makes a phone call to shore. This action is not too far from the truth as today the "3000 mile screwdriver" ethos thrives in the Australian Defence Force, Navy in particular.

I can only assume when the foreign fishing vessel attempted to ram the warship and cause IMMEDIATE harm to the crew, the first thing the CO did was to phone the shore authority, who would have phoned the Maritime Command Headquarters, who would have contacted the Maritime Commander personally, who would have contacted the Chief of the Defence Force, who contacted the Minister of Defence to inform him that Australian Navy personnel were in immediate danger and request permission to use an appropriate level of force in self-defence!

One of the (many) reasons I left Defence was because of the increasing inability of the heirachy to make decisions without "checking with mother first". It is reports like these which only reinforce that I made a correct choice. Don't think our defence forces are not the only one doing this, we have taken the lead from others like the US and the UK whose arm-chair Generals and Admirals use today's modern technologies to make the decisions for the troops on the ground. It makes for great TV and Hollywood viewing but in real life it is a pain in the ****, lessens the ability for personnel in life-threatening situations to make correct decisions on their own and will eventually cost lives. Even if you can see the bullets on the satellite-feed they cannot harm you if you're a thousand miles away!

Things are even more unfortunate for the Commanding Officer of the warship; (s)he cannot win whatever happens. If the foreigners had harmed or killed one of the boarding party, the subsequent inquiry would ask why the CO had not informed their troops of their inherent right to self defence and/or directed fire onto the FFV to protect the personnel under their command. On the other hand, should the CO have assessed personnel were in immediate danger and directed fire onto the FFV without phoning home first, (s)he would basically end their Command and their career as the inquiry with perfect hindsight vision would almost certainly find the CO overstepped their command responsibilities by making the decision without approval from a higher authority. In any case, the CO cannot feel certain that any decision they make will be right, so therefore must "ask mother for permission" before sneezing, wiping their bum or engaging an enemy who poses an immediate threat. One day they will be REQUIRED by the situation to make a command decision, but because they have never had to make one before, they will hesitate or may simply make the wrong decision because they lack the experience to make the right decisions.

I have heard it time and time again from the heirachy that they, "will support whatever decision you make", I assume the CO in this report would have heard this many times too. This is all well and good until with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight the decision turns out to be wrong, in which case the previously-supportive heirachy usually end up being called as a prosecution witness against you. (Personal experiences here.)

It is a very sad state of affairs that one day will eventually lead to the unnecessary loss of life. I still fear for the troops in the direct line of fire as they are the ones who risk their lives whilst those in the background umm and ahh when immediate decisions are required. A cultural change is required by the press-driven-Government and the Defence Chiefs to allow the commanders on the ground to make the decisions without fear of prosecution, formed after the fact with perfect hindsight and much more information than was available at the time.


wabbit

 

[wabbit]

Australian Navy defeated by rusting JUNK and men throwing machetes!

Many of these vessels are better built, faster, stronger and have better technology than our military. e.g. Many years ago, in a cost cutting exercise the Navy replaced the existing PCF propellers with a new more efficient design that allowed for longer steaming on the same fuel, but reduced the patrol speed and the sprint speeds of the vessels, giving a lot of the advantage back to the illegals. Modern propeller designs used by commercial entities (merchant marine as well as fishing fleets) get higher speeds and better economy because they spend the money on this technology. The ADF doesn't have the money, allegedly?

"Your weapons are made by the lowest bidder." Murphy's Military Laws

It has been known for boarding parties to take "refuge" during operations on long-liners in rough seas as they are more stable than our PCFs, or if the weather was hot and the PCF military-specification air conditioning systems had packed it in (a common occurrence) but the civilian fishing vessel systems were still running!

In any case, I know who would win a competition between a steel hull (rusty or not) being used in anger against an aluminum or composite hull, and it wouldn't be the good guys!

I am curious though, how did a vessel that warranted the use of direct-fire be allowed to re-enter International waters?


wabbit

 

[Buster]

Hey Tech/a

Un acceptable---Whimps!!

Australian Navy defeated by rusting JUNK and men throwing machetes!

Joke.

Hmmm.. Would be very interested in what it is that you would propose?? Have you served? Are you aware how 'big' our patrol boats are, or how many troops make up the crew? How about the manning requirements of a boarding party (including the boat crew)? Don't forget the Steaming party??

Sink it?? Then you need to consider where you are going to secure the Vessels (hostile) crew, then food/water/security.. it goes on and on..

A Frigate (FFG or ANZAC) wouldn't have a problem, but a patrolly.. forget it.

Stick to your stocks mate.. better yet as they are horribly short on numbers at the moment join up, might give you a different perspective..

Regards,

Buster.

 

[tech/a]

Never served.

But can see where those on the boat more than likely felt like myself and Wabbit.

If you get caught trafficing you get shot by the Indonesians.
Come poach our waters with the threat of being shot---dead---and there would be an international incident.

Tell me what exactly is the deterent?

 

[Buster]

Hey Tech,

Never served.

Ahhh..

Tell me what exactly is the deterent?

I don't recall you asking about deterrents.. I seem to remember the comment alluding to the fact the (Royal) Australian Navy was a Joke and that the personnel were all whimps..

But can see where those on the boat more than likely felt like myself and Wabbit.

It's got little to do with what they felt like, they are trained, they are professionals, and they do what they are told. I guess it's surprising to some but the Defence Force is not a law unto itself, it has to act within the bounds of the law and has many restrictions placed upon it. In this case the rules of engagement and use of force. In perspective we are talking about fishermen mate, I’d suggest you would be appalled at the restrictions placed upon us in 'Operational' areas.

If you get caught trafficing you get shot by the Indonesians.

Yes, that's their law.. Unfortunately, when you find yourself in another country you are subject to their laws, not Australian law..

Come poach our waters with the threat of being shot---dead---and there would be an international incident.

There is no threat of being shot if you come fish in our waters.. We are a DEFENCE force, not an OFFENCE force.. the only reason this vessel was fired upon was because it acted aggressively.. Ordinarily they are told to move on, they do until the patrolly disappears and then they do what they like again. Unless of course the vessel is unseaworthy when it gets escorted back to port and the illegal crew get an all expenses paid holiday in conditions far superior to anything they have experienced before, and flown home some time later at taxpayers expense..

As an aside, we don’t actually fire at them either, normally a 10 Deg offset is applied in front of and over their bow.. Just warning shots..

Am still very interested in what it is that you would propose the wimpy crew should have done..

Regards,

Buster.

 

[Mofra]

I am very close to the top military hierarchy in all three services including the CDF and I can tell you, most can't even go to the toilet without feeling they have to let the government know. The government is far too hands on when it comes to military and uses them in whatever way it can to make itself look good. It is clear also that the current CDF got the job for purely political reasons relating to Children Overboard rather then because he was particularly the best candidate.

Seems a few served here (myself included, short stint, min time).
Absolutely agree...have been through inquiries, read reports, etc etc.

The only thing the Defence Force cares more about than "protecting Australia and it's interests" is protecting themselves from bad PR. It's a shame, but no foreign force will ever worry Russell Offices as much as the domestic media will. Fact.

 

[Smurf1976]

Many of these vessels are better built, faster, stronger and have better technology than our military. e.g. Many years ago, in a cost cutting exercise the Navy replaced the existing PCF propellers

What's PCF?

 

[tech/a]

(1) Sink the boat.(Should be mandatory law ).
(2) Arrest the poachers and charge them with whatever offences they commit.
(3) Have them tried by OUR law.(Introduce laws that ARE deterents)
(4) Have them serve here their time at the cost of their homeland--then
(5) Have them deported at the cost of their homeland.

Make a stand so that we are not seen as soft touches.

Ordinarily they are told to move on, they do until the patrolly disappears and then they do what they like again. Unless of course the vessel is unseaworthy when it gets escorted back to port and the illegal crew get an all expenses paid holiday in conditions far superior to anything they have experienced before, and flown home some time later at taxpayers expense..

Seems this is the best deterent we have!
Policy like this wont see a decline will it?

 

[Jikx]

I don't think Australia needs more tanks.. we need more ships.

 

[Happy]

(1) Sink the boat.(Should be mandatory law ).

Maybe better be :
(1) Sink the boat with crew. (Should be mandatory law).

 

[wabbit]

What's PCF?

PCF - Patrol Craft, Fast but don't confuse this with the common abbreviation for the new patrol boats, ACPB (Armidale Class Patrol Boats); one is a NATO designation, one is a local administrative simplicity.

There is a NATO system to describe ships/submarines
FFG - Frigate, Guided
DDG - Destroyer, Guided
CVN - Aricraft Carrier, Nuclear
SSN - Submarine, Nuclear
SSBN - Submarine, Ballistic Missile, Nuclear
etc

A non-encompassing but useful site for more information for the curious: http://www.hazegray.org/faq/smn2.htm


wabbit

 

[It's Snake Pliskin]

(1) Sink the boat.(Should be mandatory law ).
(2) Arrest the poachers and charge them with whatever offences they commit.
(3) Have them tried by OUR law.(Introduce laws that ARE deterents)
(4) Have them serve here their time at the cost of their homeland--then
(5) Have them deported at the cost of their homeland.

Make a stand so that we are not seen as soft touches

Tech,

I agree totally with what you say.

Unfortunately currently we are a joke.