The RN are doing their bit too :D

http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/server/show/ConWebDoc.14277/changeNav/6568

nicely done http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b2...icons/DRUK.gif

As does the BM


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...tish-ship.html

a bit suicidal behaviour from now on

Apparently the Bundestag will set new ROEs for the German Navy (BM, Bundesmarine is loooong gone) in December, allowing them to arrest pirates and to use force in cases other than self defense.

But harassing speedboats with a Sea Lynx sounds fun.
I wonder wether the Mk.88As are restricted to the new .50 cal (NOT an M2!) doorgun or if they have Sea Skuas aboard Karlsruhe.

So, everyone here IS aware that if you fit a civilian tanker with weapons it is officially considered a warship. Therefore, it will be barred from entering a majority of the world's ports. So, that option is out the windown immedietly.

Oil is below $50/barrel right now so it looks like this isn't having that much effect on prices.

I'm sure that if the choice was to allow armed merchant ships into port or not have oil delivered they would change their minds about that quickly enough...

There are a few uranium merchant ships that carry 30mm cannon.

Prove it .. :o

Found this online while reading email...

Shippers seek naval blockade of Somali coast


KUALA LUMPUR, Malaysia – Shipping officials from around the world called for a military blockade Monday along the coast of Somalia to intercept pirate vessels heading out to sea.

I've heard this as well. But then, if you're carrying uranium, you're already dealing with some hard core custom issues.

The oil is received by a private company. Custom decisions are made by a government entity. Governments love nothing more than messing around with foreign shipping companies, if only for the heck of it... I've seen ships being denied entry for sending their papers an hour too late, crew members being confined aboard because of a typo in their birthdate or a small ink stain on their CDCs, you name it. Eventually, enough phone calls and letters will be exchanged (And maybe a couple of bribes) and the ship will be allowed entry. Let's assume it's a small - very small - tanker, and it had to spend two days at anchor. You're up to 50 000$ in lost charter revenue, plus expenses.

Why do you think cruise ships gave up skeet shooting? Half because of environmental regulations, half because of the custom hassle of clearing the rifles into every port. Cruise ship have officers on board dedicated to doing custom paperwork all day long... And they found a couple of 12 gauge to be too much trouble to be worth it.

Imagine a .50 cal. I don't even want to think about small arms; that'd probably be even worst (Due to the possibillity of them being smuggled ashore)

Plus, you have to train the crew (Let's assume they all speak English. Good luck!), buy the guns, (Trust me, it's too expensive) insure them (Hello, workplace injury risks! Fire risks! Explosion risks! It's too expensive.) , carry them (Let's assume 5 tons, at 40$ a ton per trip...), pay customs fees / bribes wherever you go - assuming some podunk country isn't just gonna seize the darn things, or you don't have them stolen in dry dock. Let's also hope that arming the ship doesn't entitle the crew to warzone pay.

Also, you have to train the crew to use them effectively. We're talking about people who, in many cases, can barely be trusted with a paint gun. (Carrying a trained gun crew on top of the existing crew is WAY too expensive to even think about.)

Remember, the merchant marine exists for one purpose, and one purpose only : To turn a profit.

An interesting perspective on the Somali pirate issue from guess where...

Why pirates are good, and why the US isn't doing anything really to stop them.

PD

Well, I'm not a specialist sitting in a warm office in a big city, so I guess my opinion isn't that well researched. I mean, I'm just a blue collar worker and all that.

But as far as I'm concerned, Pirates = Very ****ing bad.

Seriously, is this guy really saying "Let them go at it, it's good for us in the long run"? Isn't that a bit like saying "Let the suicide bomber have their fun, it lowers their number and doesn't kill US citizens"?

While he does make a point that anti-piracy laws probably need a good revamping (I'm not entirely up to date on THAT area of maritime law, but if it's like the rest of it, it needs updating), and it's good that there is finally some media attention to the piracy problem, I just can't wrap my head around the rest of his piece. Let the US fight global terror while the other countries handle this lesser type of terrorism? Deal with the pirate government? They'll stabilize the area?

Whaaaa? Am I missing something here?

Heh, from the blog's "about" thing:

Yeah, I'm not commenting on that blog.

Hey Etienne,

He's doing what academics do. Write a trendy new perspective that may not necessarily be right, but is different and will be noticed. I can't say I believe he's right, but I don't believe he is wrong either. So I'm not sure about this...

You give yourself too little credit. I'm betting you make a bunch more than many "white collar" people I know as a ship's officer (I find the "collar" definitions particularly irritating in this age of increasing economic disparity. Just gives people something to be pissed off about at each other.) But anyways, on the subject of the thread.

What he seems to think is that the USN can/should concentrate on GWOT related missions because the rest of the world can, and should step up to the plate. That wouldn't happen if the USN ran around blowing every pirate out of the water they found and solving everybody else's problems for them. Paths of least resistance and whatnot. I don't know where he pulls his economic numbers from, but I'll give him enough credit to assume he's not going around deceiving people.

It does sound crazy on the face of it. But I think it's a tenet of US foreign policy now that Islamist governments ala Taliban ruling a country is something that shouldn't be allowed to happen. A bunch of thugs with guns, experience, and their own little navy represent a potential counter to Islamic forces in the area. A context to this is the US relying very much on known heroin runners/warlords (the Afghani Northern Alliance) during OEF.

Do we not expect around here noobs to ask noobish questions?

PD