Remix.run Logo
MithrilTuxedo a day ago

Coalition navy ships (US, England, France, Germany, etc.) are supposed to protect commercial vessels transiting through the International Recommended Transit Corridor (IRTC). Either this ship left the IRTC or the IRTC isn't being protected.

Ships coming through the Gulf of Aden to reach African ports south of it are advised to head east until they were south of India (past the Maldives) before heading south, and then head due west to reach their destination. It's really expensive advice though, and not everyone follows it.

I was on the USS Momsen's VBSS team in the Gulf of Aden back in 2010-2012. We showed up with overwhelming force and they knew they'd survive if they didn't fight back. It was relatively safe and boring. We had protection from our reputation.

I think the US Navy's reputation has been squandered in the last year and I've worried it would make VBSS a lot more dangerous.

Edit: we also didn't hear much from the Houthis while I was there. Things got worse in Yemen after my time.

https://www.maritime.dot.gov/msci/2025-012-red-sea-bab-el-ma...

browsingonly a day ago | parent [-]

> Navy's reputation has been squandered in the last year

I don't understand how anything that has occurred in the last year would make a Somali pirate think it's less likely they would be killed if they chose to resist an American boarding party. If anything, they would think it's more likely they'd be killed and that there might be unpredictably severe reprisals against their clan, supporters, etc.

What events were you thinking of?

he0001 a day ago | parent | next [-]

It’s generally a evaluation of risk and reward. Guess they are counting on US being busy elsewhere. What I hear, the chain of command is in disarray.

estimator7292 a day ago | parent | prev [-]

On the other hand, Somali pirates have attacked fully loaded warships dozens of times, apparently not realizing that small arms and a dinghy can't take down a goddamn battleship