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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

[Letum]

Originally Posted by nikimcbee

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!!

[AVGWarhawk]

Originally Posted by nikimcbee

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.

[UnderseaLcpl]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

[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!

[SteamWake]

You all have it wrong !

Dolphins are the answer !

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/20...t_11184581.htm

[Quillan]

Sharks! Sharks with fricken' laser beams!

[Platapus]

Originally Posted by Quillan

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?