Methods for combating modern piracy......

[={FH}=Paddy]

An interesting article in regards to the ongoing issue of modern day piracy and some considered methods in which to combat it.
I found most interesting the “Update” mention for the potential use of Q-Ships and submarines alike! (Made me think of Jimbuna’s great MOD)
Hope you enjoy.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7991512.stm

[Letum]

I'm not convinced that government's or navies need to do anything.
The shipping company can surely hire out their own private security. If they
chose not to because of the cost then it is their own ships they are putting
at risk.

[nikimcbee]

I'm not convinced that government's or navies need to do anything.
The shipping company can surely hire out their own private security. If they
chose not to because of the cost then it is their own ships they are putting
at risk.

An interesting though. There was a guy on the radio last night making the same argument (to use private security vs national navy)

I thought the role of one's navy was to protect their national interest.

[nikimcbee]

These include:


Convoys. Already done in the case of aid ships going into Kenyan and Somali ports
Arming the crews. The crews might not want this, though in the latest case the American crew of cargo ship Maersk Alabama did fight back
Arming merchant ships with heavy guns. Ship owners might not want to risk an engagement at sea
luring pirates into attacking apparently unarmed ships which then declared themselves as warships. Would this be in "accordance with international law"?
Other ideas suggested would appeal to officers Denman and Decatur.
(Update: I have had a flood of further e-mails, for which many thanks. The plans proposed range from having submarines on stand-by to surface when needed, to 'Q-ships' (armed, disguised merchantmen), to immediate sinking, to blockades, to invasion. The general feeling is that governments and navies are too weak. There have been a few writers, though, who say that the real problem is in Somalia itself and that the pirates take to their trade because they cannot make a living in other ways.)


I see the author has been tapping subsim's knowledge base!:haha::hmmm:

[SteamWake]

You all have it wrong !

Dolphins are the answer !

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2009-04/14/content_11184581.htm

[Quillan]

Sharks! Sharks with fricken' laser beams!

[Platapus]

Sharks! Sharks with fricken' laser beams!

You know, I have one simple request. And that is to have sharks with frickin' laser beams attached to their heads! Now evidently my cycloptic colleague informs me that that cannot be done. Ah, would you remind me what I pay you people for, honestly? Throw me a bone here! What do we have?
:D

[Letum]

I thought the role of one's navy was to protect their national interest.

I agree there, but the navy would not give you an escort if you sailed through
iceberg filled waters without radar just because you didn't want the expense
of radar, so why should they escort you through pirate infested waters
because you didn't want the expense of private security?

That said, it isn't a strong opinion of mine. Perhaps the navy is the way to go.


Would it compromise the navy's independence if they offer to protect ships for a price?

[MothBalls]

Isn't there an issue with many countries not allowing armed vessels of any kind into their waters and harbors? I thought I read something a few months back, when all of this finally escalated to CNN proportions, that arming the ships wasn't an option. It also had something to do with the crews not being trained to fight. I'll have to go search around for the report.

When this plays out I think we'll discover that diplomacy isn't always an option. The solution is inevitable, fight fire with fire, only our fire is going to a little hotter than theirs.

I'd be willing to bet that someone corporation like Blackwater is going to come up with a plan to load weapons and personnel after the ships loads up clears the harbor. They then become responsible for the safety of the vessel until it nears its next port. Before leaving international waters they'll have to offload the weapons and crew.

(Heeeyyyyyy.... if we tap into the resources of Subsim I'm sure we can come up with our own mercenary ship for hire. Subman can probably get us more and better weapons than most countries could get. If that failed, we could always get Skybird to talk them to death.)

No matter what happens, there is one thing that all of us know is a given, if it hasn't happened yet it will soon. Through higher prices, insurance premiums and taxes, you and I are the ones that will be paying for the solution no matter what it costs.

[Jimbuna]

A simple convoy system, two escorts (each equipped with at least one helicopter for a rapid response).

The vessels meet at a pre-determined formation point and time then disband when a safe distance away.

The two escorts pick up the next opposite direction convoy at this point and so on and so on.

A simple system of half a dozen countries agreeing a rota for the supply of two ships each for a given time.

This could/would also be beneficial to all participating countries as a training aid for joint sea ops.

Failing that.....Q Ships...BE MORE AGGRESSIVE!!...SINK EM ALL!! http://www.psionguild.org/forums/images/smilies/wolfsmilies/pirate.gif

[Kratos]

Creeest they cant be that hard to spot :O:

http://img18.imageshack.us/img18/9748/pirateshipff.gif :rotfl:

[AVGWarhawk]

An interesting though. There was a guy on the radio last night making the same argument (to use private security vs national navy)

I thought the role of one's navy was to protect their national interest.


If I'm not mistaken, Marines were formed during the tailship era to protect vessels going to foreign ports. I think the Marines need to go back to old school and ride these container ships from port to port...just like the good old days. :salute:

[Jimbuna]

Creeest they cant be that hard to spot :O:

http://img18.imageshack.us/img18/9748/pirateshipff.gif :rotfl:

...or even :DL


http://img254.imageshack.us/img254/5899/bailinganimwf3.gif

[={FH}=Paddy]

Well firstly, I’m glad to see that this article has gained an element of debate, both with serious and somewhat more humoristic approaches!!!

A couple of points that I was considering, after reading over your comments, please correct me if I am wrong but is it not an international maritime offence to carry weaponry through national shipping jurisdictions? I know that in Indonesia (and general Far East) this “piracy” issue has been greatly looked in to and debated over many years. Some suggestions have been both the use of armed escorts (navy ship in the form of convoy protection) and alternatively, specially assigned “on board task force” accompaniment through the Strait of Malacca but this did not completely hold maritime legislative water; excuse the pun! (It has also been claimed and reported that some of the Indonesian / Philippine “British trained” anti piracy special force groups have seen it fit and more lucrative to join the other side and exploit their gained training to great reward!!)

The comment about the use of “Blackwater” (or any such CPC for that matter) in such a scenario would worry me greatly. Their trademark of overwhelming, indiscriminate use of force has a tendency to escalate a situation unnecessarily and runs the risk of greater use of reciprocating force and avoidable reprisals; greatly in comparison to what we have seen in the Gulf of Eden and East Coast of Africa to date. (If we look at Iraq, Blackwater, being still a more or less unaccountable entity has achieved little more than to justify the moderate Iraqi to become the extremist on many occasions, through their heavy handed approach. While on the contrary but in the same line of work, the British CPC’s have gained both respect and credibility on the ground by blending in with the indigenous population, not creating a scene with their “potential” firepower and maintaining a effective and low presence and thus being more efficient and professional alike). Either way, CPC’s would worry me.

As jimbuna mentioned, I see the use of “ferryman convoys” being the most realistic for the time being, rally point and drop off, return journey reciprocated etc. As we speak we have a multinational maritime force insitu, British, American, Chinese, Dutch, and Australian, to mention but a few participating nations, yet still no eradication or even an element of prevention to date? Is the obvious being over looked?

The (token stand in government in Somalia, for what it is worth) has agreed for international forces to use force within their waters to prevent piracy, can anyone say if this has been afforded to land based operations? Maybe as the old man “Lord Palmerston” suggests, "Taking a wasps' nest... is more effective than catching the wasps one by one…….."? Should these forces start land based operations at the hub of the problem? Or is “The Mog” still to fresh a topic to consider this action?

I welcome both your interest and thoughts on this debate.

(Humorous ones too!)

[Letum]

please correct me if I am wrong but is it not an international maritime offence to carry weaponry through national shipping jurisdictions?

I could also be wrong, but I am under the impression that this only applies to
mounted guns, not small arms. Can anyone confirm this?

[August]

Inaccurate assessments on the capabilities and effectiveness of a particular private security company aside, I'd think it would likely be prohibitively expensive to put a security team that was big enough and well armed enough to do the job on each and every ship that travels through that area. After all only a tiny fraction of the huge number of ships that transit the area every day are attacked.

[Letum]

I'd think it would likely be prohibitively expensive to put a security team that was big enough and well armed enough to do the job on each and every ship.


No one is paying to have them on every ship.
You, the ship owner are paying to have them on your ship, if you want them.
If the cost of security outweighs the risk of losing your ship, then you don't
need security.

Besides, I doubt tax-funded missile cruisers, helicopters and marines are
much cheaper to say the least.

[August]

No one is paying to have them on every ship.
You, the ship owner are paying to have them on your ship, if you want them.
If the cost of security outweighs the risk of losing your ship, then you don't
need security.

Exactly. Which is why you don't see security on these ships.

[Letum]

Then if they don't think they need security; why give it to them?

If you don't buy locks for your doors, you can't complain if you are robbed.


ed: we can do some math here....How many ships sail through there per
month and how any are pirated each month?
What is the average cost to a shipping company per ship pirated?

[MothBalls]

As jimbuna mentioned, I see the use of “ferryman convoys” being the most realistic for the time being, rally point and drop off, return journey reciprocated etc.

It might not be realistic to do convoys. I don't know the exact numbers so I don't know how feasible it is. It could be hundreds of ships per day in both directions. It might just be a handful. Seems like it would be a massive effort to coordinate something like that.
As we speak we have a multinational maritime force insitu, British, American, Chinese, Dutch, and Australian, to mention but a few participating nations, yet still no eradication or even an element of prevention to date? Is the obvious being over looked?

I'd wonder how many ships and of what type all of them sent. From what I've read it's a token effort compared to the combined naval resources of the participating countries.

What do you think of the idea of sending a "boatload" of warships into the area. I mean so many to the point of obvious overkill. A Carrier group from each country, a slew of destroyers, air recon, etc. Throw everything at them, show them it's game over and it won't be tolerated. The sooner the better.

Some might argue that it's cost prohibitive to send that many resources. But the question needs to be asked; How much will it cost if we don't do it? There should be a sense of urgency to get this done. Every ransom paid is funding the construction of an enemy force. The stronger we make them, the tougher it will be to eliminate them. They're going to start buying more sophisticated weapons and very soon we're going to have a real war with real casualties.

That could be a possible solution. Or, it's quite possible the 4 pints of ale I just drank is just making me want to go out and bomb the living shiznit out of some pirates.

[={FH}=Paddy]

Or, it's quite possible the 4 pints of ale I just drank is just making me want to go out and bomb the living shiznit out of some pirates.

:D:rotfl:

Here is an interesting link i came across, it also has a list of the top 20 "non lethal" methods to deter pirates -
http://gcaptain.com/maritime/blog/

Here are the suggestions - (Check out the "Dazzle Gun")
http://gcaptain.com/maritime/blog/anti-pirate-weapons-piracy-somalia/

[Jimbuna]

Number 1 "Denial Of Ransom" has got to be the most serious contender here. In relation to the list that is. :hmmm:

[Etienne]

Number 1 "Denial Of Ransom" has got to be the most serious contender here. In relation to the list that is. :hmmm:


Would likely result in some crewmembers getting killed, or some ships getting scuttled.

A 100 000 DWT tanker getting scuttled would make for a mess of epic proportion...

[Tribesman]

please correct me if I am wrong but is it not an international maritime offence to carry weaponry through national shipping jurisdictions?
It isn't an offence , its just that each area of territorial waters has different firearm laws that go with their country , so you noy only have to comply with all the different laws in the ports you are stopping at you also have to comply with those of all the territorial waters you pass through . So a ship on a standard voyage might have to follow dozen different sets of laws and get a dozen different sets of paperwork if it wants to carry weapons .
Its OK if you are off on a cruise in your own boat and you have the time for all the papework or if you are on a regular commercial A-B run , but for most commercial traffic it just gets too complicated .

[={FH}=Paddy]

@ Tribesman: Thanks for the clarification on that; I was aware that there were restrictions but as you put it, it would be a bloody nightmare to have your comercial crew armed.

@ Etienne: Valid point you make there about scuttling of a ship on that scale, if one reads the BBC reports about the attempted boarding of the American flag ship “Liberty Sun” yesterday, this was the apparent only intention of the pirates. (Kill the crew and scuttle the ship in revenge for the recent fatal shooting of their fellow Beardies)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7999350.stm

@ all: Looks like the UN are paying this issue some lip service! - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8001102.stm

Let’s us see what the next course of action is that the international community decides to take to tackle this issue.
Quite honestly, I would not fancy my odds being a Somali pirate at the moment!

France – 14
USA – 4

…and counting :arrgh!:

[Jimbuna]

The bottom line here has got to be adherence of the fundamental principle that people must face up to the consequences of their actions.

The sooner these people are educated/informed to this fact the sooner they can make an informed choice fully in the knowledge of the risks they are taking should they fail to heed the lesson.

[FIREWALL]

This has all the makeings of a Movie\ Tv series or Video game. :hmmm:

[UnderseaLcpl]

I'm not convinced that government's or navies need to do anything.
The shipping company can surely hire out their own private security. If they
chose not to because of the cost then it is their own ships they are putting
at risk.

I totally agree with this. Diplomatic efforts should be focused on making naval security firms permissable in as many nations as possible.

Quite frankly, convoys are not a workeable option. Modern trade is heavily dependant on "just-in-time" delivery. It saves on storage and demurrage costs and makes products cheaper. Unless you're all willing to pay a few more dollars for "pirate-safe" products, this isn't going to happen. And then of course there is the cost of operating and maintaining the escorts, which would be astronomical.
Convoys are too expensive and inflexible to be conducive to modern trade whether they use a relay system or anything else.
Arming merchants presents a similar problem in that lots of nations won't allow armed merchants into their waters or ports. Naval gunnery is a difficult art to learn and can be highly inaccurate unless some sort of fire control is used. Shipping companies are not going to buy FCS systems, nor are they going to train crews to operate naval artillery.
Even if they did, someone would have to be on watch for the pirates, which would probably mean permanently increasing the crew roster. No shipping company would like that plan.

Private security firms avoid these problems. They are very flexible and effective. They are already well-trained, and the small arms they would bring aboard would be more than enough to stop a handful of a$$holes in a motorboat. They could be embarked and disembarked almost on demand. They could even avoid a lot of weapons controls because there would only be a need for them at a few ports, thus making the problem more manageable.
Of course, the conduct of private military contractors has been questioned many times, but I am of the opinion that this has more to do with unfair press coverage than anything else. That's another post entirely but I'd be happy to argue on behalf of the PMCs. I had the priviledge of working with Blackwater employees in Iraq and I was very impressed with them. Much moreso than I was with our own troops.:shifty: