US is not a problem.
The problem is:
There is not much us flagged vsls.
And, in my opinion, there is more blue whales at sea then american merchant mariners. Especilay at deep sea. The better part is in GoM.
Check how much vsls is under foc. Thats the problem.
[quote=Vstar;21805]Hi all,
I must say that firstly I’m pretty angry with the so called task force. The catch and release policy they appear to be opperating is laughable. Until they get it into their heads that they need to start blasting a few of them out of the water then they will continue to opperate, and in turn continue to place sailors lives in danger.[/quote]
They tried to get Mauritius to take them and build a prison - oddly enough, they declined.
Bulls$%t! Their skiffs are faster and more maneuverable. The average piracy incident lasts 11-12 minutes. A good lookout gives you a little more time to react, it doesn’t prevent the incident.
Lots of Armed Security Detachments (ASD - new acronym I started seeing a couple of weeks ago) out there. No problems so far going into foreign ports - the weapons get sealed up, much like the slop chest. Push come to shove, everytime a ship shoots back at the pirates, they go away! To me, it doesn’t get much simpler than that. Do I care if we actually hit any of them? No. Just go away!
Barbed wire washes off in heavy seas - unless you have a lot of freeboard - in which case, you probably don’t need the barbed wire. Razor wire is nastier… Electrify it? Little thing called electrolysis - and salt water which is a great conductor.
If they are climbing up the rail, then they are up close and personal. And armed. That’s the time when the crew should be in their hidey-hole, not going hand to hand (or flame thrower to AK-47) with the pirates.
I am of mixed views - what is clear is the EU/US navies in the area have their hands tied with legalities and nicities and are scared of escalating the violence to where the pirates actually start killing hostages. On the other hand, ship’s crews (MSC excepted) are not generally trained in small arms. Even on MSC ships, although the crews are trained in small arms, the “rules of engagement” are so restrictive that you can’t use the weapons until it’s too late (unless you have a Force Protection detachment aboard, in which case the rules are different)! I think, the bottom line is that the best solution is to untie the hands of the militaries so they can do their job, then turn them loose to root out the piracy! Sink the mother ships; sink the skiffs; some armed predator drones over the known pirate havens with “weapons free” authority. It won’t be easy, it won’t be pretty and people are going to die (including some innocent mariners) but I just don’t see any other effective answer. Failing that, I would like to see some sort of immunity from prosecution provision recognized by the UN before I advocate arming crews! I would remind you all that there are four US SEALS under courtmartial today because they gave a known terrorist a “bloody lip” when they captured him! Those are military personnel! What do you think they’d do to a civilian mariner? Food for thought.
The Gulf of Aden has many fishing vessels including skiffs and larger vessels. The smaller skiffs, powered by outboard motors are fishing for tuna. For every pirate there must be hundreds or thousands of fisherman. One of the principles governing the use of force in the GoA is that these fisherman have the right to fish just as they have before pirates became a problem in the area. Rules of Engagement which do not recognize that right will not be accepted by the international community and will remain only as a fantasy of armchair gunners.
While attending a party last night came up with the following thought.
It has got to be expensive keeping those Navy ships on station so arm the merchant seaman! Send the Navy home but give the seaman some of the money saved. I would gladly man a M-70 for some (alot) extra income.
Navy cannot do their job perhaps the seaman can. Especially after reading about a Captain killed aboard that ship recently captured.
Worry about legalities? Why do we have lawyers?
[QUOTE=Captmad;23099]While attending a party last night came up with the following thought.
It has got to be expensive keeping those Navy ships on station so arm the merchant seaman! Send the Navy home but give the seaman some of the money saved. I would gladly man a M-70 for some (alot) extra income.
Navy cannot do their job perhaps the seaman can. Especially after reading about a Captain killed aboard that ship recently captured.
Worry about legalities? Why do we have lawyers?[/QUOTE]
An M-70 is a shortened down version of an AK-47. You’d be better off with an Browning M2, it is a machine gun that is attached to a mount and is manned. Fires a .50 BMG round as opposed to the 7.62x39mm that is fired out of the M-70. These rounds can easily takeout the engine on an approaching craft.
I was wondering about the M70 reference- I’ll bet he meant M60.Yep a Ma Deuce is probably your best bet for belt fed…
The stories of sailors, usually engineers, being held aboard pirated cargo vessels doing service in the ‘coastal trade’ (for years) off of China sadden me.
Thats the next pirate story I want to hear about, how one of those guys are set free and get to go home.
this is not the first time we westerners have had to face pirates. all this gun talk - if enacted - would really achieve nothing long term, besides more people (on both sides) getting killed, as would most likely happen.
to rid the seas of pirates long term just study some history: very effective measures were taken against the Barbary Pirates.
The normal “perimeter” for a ship is the rail. Under Piracy 1.0 (i.e. Straits of Malacca), fortifying the perimeter through fire hoses, roving patrols and barbed/razor wire sufficed. Under Piracy 2.0 (Somali pirates), fortifying the perimeter hasn’t been as effective due to the pirates being more heavily armed and willing to use their weapons. It has been effective under the conditions of high enough freeboard and/or speed. The use of weapons onboard the ship to push the “perimeter” out to 150-200 meters, effectively counters the pirates willingness to use force.
Non-lethal methods (such as LRADs/lasers/etc.) are useful for determining the true intent of the boat approaching you. Non-lethal methods are also useful for satisfying the legal aspects of a scaled escalation of force, before arriving at deadly force.
In my personal experience, having weapons onboard has resulted only in casualties on the other side - as far as I’m concerned, the pirates are the ones raising the bar on weaponry - we’re just reacting to it.
It is obvious that the naval forces being present and on patrol in the GOA is a benefit to all, even though they can not cover the entire area and can be somewhat restricted in their actions due to various reasons. “There is no One Size Fits All” solution in the maritime industry. Vessels are different, posts of call vary from transit to transit and from company to company. The real question is "How do I get my vessel from point ‘A’ to point ‘B’ safely with the crew and cargo intact?’
The answer is to have a vessel / transit specific risk assessment conducted by a qualified risk assessment individual. Then the management can make sound decisions on the steps needed to proceed with the transit safely, instead of just rolling the dice and hoping for the best.
Escalating the Issue: Military Forces and Ship Escorts;
Risk management involves balancing the efforts associated with protecting an organization against loss with the potential for those losses to occur, if left untreated. What needs to be understood, however, is that security risk is only one kind of risk faced by a shipping company—we cannot forget operational, legal and other kinds of risks. The contracting of military forces changes this balance significantly.
When we look at the use of military forces being paid by private interests to provide these kinds of services, we are entering a minefield of issues. Before we explore some of those, it should be clear there may well be cases where the military, its government and the private sector have come to legitimate arrangements regarding cost sharing. What also needs to be clear is that, like many other risk management activities, companies should be exercising their due diligence before falling prey to the hype and pictures of flashy patrol vessels.
The first question that should be asked is whether or not this approach is actually legal. This has three parts. First, does this ship’s flag state condone this sort of arrangement? If not, then you run risks associated with being identified less favorably for targeting purposes, increased inspections and how the flag state generally views your company. The second element involves the nation involved. Does the government of the military involved have knowledge of and endorse the activity, or are you dealing with a situation where a senior official is using his or her influence to use government resources for personal gain? The third aspect is whether or not the use of an armed escort vessel is significantly different (from a legal perspective) than having the armed personnel on your ship. If your company cannot put armed personnel on board because the flag state does not agree with the concept of armed defense, will it view the hiring of a warship as an attempt to bypass its own controls and ability to administer its laws on your vessel? This will be a question for legal departments and, for the unfortunate, the courts to decide.
The second element is more pertinent to military forces on board vessels and near conflict zones. Remember, pirates are in it for the money. When you bring military forces on board, the question is not just whether or not you are a target for pirates but whether or not those forces are a target for their own various adversaries—be they terrorists or other militaries. This means that you have a new range of threats and vulnerabilities to consider, including how you treat approaching smaller vessels and so forth. For example, in the case of a potential suicide attack against a vessel, do you want your crew buried in the bowels of the ship or nearer to avenues where they can get to the deck and other areas to begin fire fighting or escape a burning vessel? This kind of scenario calls into question whether or not your security is truly risk based from an all-hazards approach or simply addressing current issues.
These kinds of questions are the kinds of questions that need to be going through the Company Security Officer’s mind when looking at these kinds of issues. It is not that it is likely, but security has to look at the broad range of possibilities and probabilities to ensure that management is well served.
Finally, you need to wonder about the priorities of the military. What happens if the military forces are recalled by their nation in order to defend it? Will the forces remain on board the vessel or will you be diverted in order to drop them off? If they are on another vessel, can they be re-tasked in order to deal with search and rescue, enforcement or other activities? These kinds of issues should also be clarified in any discussions and should be clearly documented both in terms of what assurances the company has and who is responsible for any costs associated with that action, up to an including the vessel being taken by pirates when the defenders leave.
Another issue, particularly with vessels operating outside of their territorial waters, is whether or not the vessel (and its crew) can be treated the same way as a warship or an coast guard vessel. It is, after all, now a government vessel being operated for commercial purposes—opening a whole ream of legal grey zones that the company would do well to have clarified.
All things being equal, there should be a level of effort made by the company to ensure that it is well protected legally when entering into these kinds of arrangements. While there are reputable companies providing security services (and potentially even these kinds of arrangements), there are others that will simply latch onto any opportunity to make a dollar.
This does not even begin to address the challenges associated with the issue of sovereignty or rights of innocent passage (including the restrictions). If the warship remains within its own territorial waters, we have more than enough indication to show that the pirates know how to shift locations to where the escorting vessels do not operate. At the same time, if they exit territorial waters and enter the waters of another nation, there could be issues (depending upon the international agreements with the neighbors and the levels of tensions between them) with a warship or patrol craft suddenly entering into that nation’s sovereign territory. If the forces are on board the vessel, then the matter is even worse. On one hand, the flag state may have issues with allowing foreign military personnel on board the vessel. At the other end of the spectrum, the vessel may be expelled from the waters under certain conditions for violating the conditions associated with innocent passage or may be subject to a range of enforcement activities.
None of these are conducive to conducting business when your business involves moving persons or goods from one location to another efficiently.
In short, know what you are getting into and ensure that you have verified any claims being made regarding the appropriateness of the service with the governments involved.
Here is something to consider, insurance companies have made a fortune on KR insurance ,it is a 16b industry, pirates have taken 200m+ in ransoms since 2008 , piracy has grown rapidly since 2005 and has peeked in 2010 attack numbers are on the decline. The pirates have forced higher ransoms due to diminished success and official best practice is still apposed to armed security. I believe that more is at play here .
So how do these armed guys (private sercurity) move from port to port on a deployment?
[QUOTE=Jasonax;54997]So how do these armed guys (private sercurity) move from port to port on a deployment?[/QUOTE]
Just like any other crewmember. Moving weapons is another story and the details of that maneuver should not be discussed on an open forum.
[QUOTE=c.captain;9153]The problem of course is that our glorious military doesn’t want to soil itself fighting lowly untermention pirates. Too far beneath their exhalted greatness!
I know, let’s send a Seawolf sub, a few Aegis cruisers and some F22’s and B2’s over there! $100’s of billions of ultra hightech weapons to fight a bunch of drugged up bums in t-shirts and they still wouldn’t be able to do s**t to stop them![/QUOTE]
If I’m not mistaken, the navy has quite a few assets over there patrolling for pirates, from ddgs, wasp class carriers, ticos, etc. they even hav an optional escort if you can make the right time. Thought this was one of the big reasons piracy went down off Somalia?
funny how they catch money launder’s all the time yet you can pay millions to a pirate and there is no trace to follow?
All the spy planes and satellites in the world and you cant find a mother ship, record the fast boats going and coming? DOH
Lots making money from this business
aside from expendable crew whose losing here?
[QUOTE=richard8000milesaway;24314]this is not the first time we westerners have had to face pirates. all this gun talk - if enacted - would really achieve nothing long term, besides more people (on both sides) getting killed, as would most likely happen.
to rid the seas of pirates long term just study some history: very effective measures were taken against the Barbary Pirates.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, one was called congress enacting the US Navy… Ie weapons.
It is very frustrating for me to hear how so many would rather be safe then free.
I have seen those less then lethal sound powered weapons on ships and I am not impressed.
Rubber bullets? you have to be joking…
Is it safe to give mariners access to firearms after a 5 day training course?
It is not safe to sail period if your going to use that logic. Storms, flammable materials, heavy machinery are not safe. Engineers manage to work on “dangerous” equipment and most go their entire careers without incident. Mates navigate ships all day everyday and accidents are so rare that they make the news papers.
I really don’t think it’s fair to suggest that the US Mariner is too incompetent to handle firearms safely when he is able to operate far more complex systems on a daily basis without incident. Anyone who suggests otherwise is a power hungry politician or trying to line their pockets with money selling garbage"less than lethal" defenseless systems at the expense of their country’s sailors. Maybe both.
Why spend 100k + on some sound powered joke when you can get a .50cal that actually works for probably 30-40k? (I don’t know for sure what a .50 cal costs but it’s definitely less then a sound powered joke or any of that other less then lethal junk.) I think the sound powered system I saw was like 200 to 300k and it was so stupid. That thing and it’s operator would get destroyed by RPG’s/gunfire before the pirates got anywhere near it’s pitiful effective range. Whose going to volunteer to man a noise maker against pirates armed with real weapons. What a joke.
Would it be better that the mariners be held prisoner and possibly executed for lack of ransom being paid by uncaring insurance and shipping companies?
