Armed vs Unarmed Merchant Vessel Protection

This is another market open for Private Security training, like your company, seamarshals. There have to be quite a few licking their chops for all the new opportunities out there now with the new developments in brazen piracy. Speaking of not using firearms, who is the private contractor that uses the big “decible gun” to deter would-be attackers. That sounds like a cool tool than anyone could operate and wouldn’t break any firearm laws or cause any liability issues for shipowners. I agree that readiness and a contingency plan is definitely the key. The early detection is of utmost importance. Hope your company is profitting well seamarshals.

Saying that hiring a security team to transit high risk areas is a patch is similar to saying that taking a pilot to enter a port is a patch. Does anyone believe that once the pilot gets off that the ship no longer has the ability to navigate? The purpose of embarking a security team is not to provide security for a otherwise helpless ship, it is to increase the level of security beyond what the ship can provide itself.

The pilot is needed to enter a port, my post is not talking about embarking security teams, it is referring to the vessel and crew being prepared globally instead of just for short transits through certain areas by placing a team on board, then being boarded in other areas because they are not prepared.The only preparation seems to be for the Gulf of Aden and the surrounding area. there are many successful boardings in other areas where the aggressor does not even have firearms and RPG’s.

It is not the case that the only preparation is in high risk areas. Every vessel is required by law to have and comply with a security plan. The master is responsible for ensuring the the plan is followed and, more broadly, is responsible for keeping the crew, ship and cargo safe at all times, that includes providing security in areas of high risk as well as low risk.

I would not characterize additional shipboard security in areas such as the GoA as a patch. Just as a pilot assists and advises the master in areas of high navigational risk, so the embarked security team assists the master and crew in areas of high security risk. In areas of lower risk (or areas that are perceived to be lower risk) the ship relies upon its on resources.

Whether or not the security of an individual vessel is adequate or effective at any given time is a different question.

[quote=Kennebec Captain;14957]

Whether or not the security of an individual vessel is adequate or effective at any given time is a different question.[/quote]

That is exactly the point. It becomes obvious that the plan of some of these vessels is inadequate. The whole premise of solution based security, is to get the vessel and crew prepared to control their environment at all times. In addition, it is not merely preparing the vessel and crew, but to integrate the corporate side of shipping correctly into the plan.

there is no need to turn the crew of a vessel into commandos to protect their vessel and themselves, they do, however, need to have the proper tools, knowledge and ability to protect themselves.

The bottom line is an unarmed sailor is a sheep in the eyes of a pirate.

An armed sailor is obviously less easy to be preyed upon.

If you were a pirate looking for a ship to seize would you pick one with an armed crew with a history of fighting back? Or a ship that surrenders at the first sign of an armed conflict?

I feel sorry for grown men that have to go about their business of trying to earn a living with no effective means to defend themselves.

The reality is that the majority of shipping companies and insurance underwriters just do not allow firearms on their vessels, and the international organizations such as the IMB and IMO greatly discourage the use of firearms on board.

Therefore, security has to be planned to be effective without the use of firearms on the vessel. This has nothing to do with thinking firearms should be on the vessel or not, it is just the cold reality.

You can review the article at Coracle:

http://commoditypodcasts.com/blog/2009/07/12/vessel-defense-firearms-or-no-firearms/

You definitely can have an effective defense with the proper tools and training.

Before you consider armed or unarmed security on a vessel, a proper vessel risk assessment must be conducted that is why ISSG Holdings, Ltd. and Evolutionary Security Management, Inc. have developed an unparalleled anti-piracy vessel survey program for the maritime industry. This survey is conducted in two parts. First we send a trained security surveyor to your vessel, anywhere in the world to conduct the survey without interrupting the ships schedule. The report of the security survey is then transmitted to Evolutionary Security Management, Inc. in Canada, where an exhaustive assessment is conducted, and report issued back to the company.

Being appropriately prepared for an attack by pirates requires an approach that is based on sound judgment and analysis. The approach put forward in this program is intended to meet that goal while clearly demonstrating the company’s alignment with Section 29 of MSC 1333 put forward by the IMO in June 2009 and other elements of the International Ship and Port Facility Security (ISPS) Code. While the IMO’s guidance is indicated as being a preferred practice, it can be construed, given the maritime culture, as a best practice for companies seeking to demonstrate that they are exercising their due diligence. This approach is further supported by security doctrine that has undergone a peer review to ensure its soundness and consistency with security doctrine and practices.

Theory:
The three following cycles play pivotal roles in the defence of the vessel:

  1. Protection, detection, response and recovery;

  2. Deter, detect, delay, deny and detain or destroy; and

  3. Mitigation, preparation, response and recovery.

In the first cycle, the goal is for the vessel to be able to be adequately hardened against reasonably foreseeable threats. Having been hardened, the next goal is for the vessel to be able to detect and respond to threats effectively. Finally, infrastructure should be included that allows for the vessel to recover from a range of known impacts.

In the second cycle, the focus is on the security operations of the vessel. In this case, the hardening of the vessel and other activities ideally deter the attacker. If this is not possible, however, the goal is for the vessel to be able to detect and delay the attacker from boarding the vessel (and progressively more sensitive areas) until help arrives. Finally, the goal is to be able to deny access to personnel , potential hostages, or critical aspects of the ship. Finally, the ship may want to maintain the means of being able to detain or destroy a potential attacker, although this option will rarely be acceptable.

In the third cycle, the goal is to take steps to minimize the potential impacts of an attack as part of the long-term corporate activities. The first cycle plays a significant role in the preparation of the vessel while the second cycle plays a significant role in the response phase. The final recovery phase ensures that the ship, its crew and the assets on board are protected so that normal operations can resume expeditiously.

The Approach:
There are four basic elements required in order to perform a valid survey of a vessel. These four elements are the following:

An understanding of the threat, including its knowledge, skills, abilities and traditional resources; ·

An understanding of the vessel from an engineering perspective; ·

An understanding of the operations of the vessel, particularly its navigation and how it deals with security events;

and · An understanding of the crew and its ability to respond.

Before setting out on the survey, the surveyor must review the threat profile of the potential threat in the area. Particular attention should be paid to the intent, number of craft, number of persons per craft, knowledge, skills, abilities, and resources (particularly weapons and tools) available to the attacker. This can often be provided through the Evolutionary Security website (marineweb). To get access to this web, you will need to contact
amcdougall@evolutionarysecurity.ca

The second element deals with how robust the vessel is or, in other terms, how well it is likely to withstand an attack. This is broken down into two sub-elements. The first element deals with the materials, engineering and design used in the construction of the vessel. This is a question of robustness. The second sub-element, however, looks at whether or not the design offers the attacker the means or opportunity to gradually penetrate onto the vessel, into the superstructure, and then to progressively more protected compartments.

While the second element deals with how well the ship can defend itself (a question of preparation), the third element looks at the elements of response and recovery. Having detected a suspicious vessel or potentially hostile situation, can the vessel outrun, outmaneuver, or otherwise navigate in such a way that it enhances the ship’s natural design features? This is the first sub-element. The second sub-element involves whether or not the ship has the necessary preparations, plans, procedures and testing completed to validate whether or not the infrastructure on board the vessel is working.

The final element of four involves the training and understanding of the crew. This is not part of the ship survey and fits more closely into an inspection under regulatory regimes, etc. We want, however, to remind the ship owner and operator that technology is only one piece of the challenge, the other is a capable and confident crew. Incident reports have borne out the conclusion that those that have solid plans and look like they know how to execute them have a reduced chance of being attacked over those that appear unprepared.

We believe that the Vessel Survey for Anti-Piracy Risk Assessment is vital in the maritime industry today. This program not only enhances the capability of the ship and crew to be prepared, but is one of the most cost effective ways for shipping companies to exercise due diligence and a sound security practice.

This whole thread is interesting but even more so at a level beyond what is being discussed. On one hand, we have the views of many US mariners who, born and bred here, have at least a passing understanding of firearms and their use. Rule 1: a firearm is not a toy, it is a tool, no better or worse than anything else in the bosun’s locker. It is inamimate and by itself is nothing more than metal and wood/plastic. In the hands of someone trained in it’s use it can provide recreation (like a set of drawing pencils and sketch pad), provide food (like a rod and reel), or protect and defend it’s user. Those sailors who grew up with guns in their homes know these things. A gun is a familiar sight to many and is not “frightening” or any more dangerous than a sawz-all or cutting torch; [I]misuse[/I] is hazardous.

On the other hand is the rest of the world where firearms have been portrayed as a threat to an orderly society. I would argue that the opposite is true . . . where firearms have been kept from otherwise law abiding people, the dangerous element in society finds ways to obtain them and use them in intimidating the unarmed and [I]helpless[/I] populace from going about their lawful business.

Not to get too far off an a tangent here but there is not 911 at sea. Like those who live in rural areas where law enforcement can be twenty long minutes away or those who reside in densely populated areas where police still may take a long time to respond due to traffic congestion, the mariner needs to be self reliant and able to protect themselves against any emergency. Yes, an alert watch, “hardened” access points, and non-lethal means all have their place, the use of force ladder should not be forced to stop at fire hoses and sonic projectors. If that were a proven method (stopping at non-lethal force) why do police officers carry firearms? “Now Jimmy, you need to put down that knife/gun/club and let the nice family go or we will blast you with our lould speaker.” Please.

The UN has it’s agenda, plain and simple. I am not saying that firearms have not been used with devestating results but the point is that the users have been those hell-bent on causing mayhem. Why not allow crews the chance to protect themselves? The last scourge of piracy was eradicated by brute force off the Barbary Coast but it seems as though governments are reluctant to twist the arms and crack the skulls of those responsible while work-a-day mariners pay the price and their families wait for a positive resolution. Sad. Criminals are criminals and all run the risk of paying the ultimate price for their crime. (Cue Beer for My Horses by Toby Keith and Willie Nelson)

This is not completely true. If you want to follow the IMO, a UN entity and not a government, then you are correct. Although many countries tend to ignore the UN when it comes to their own interests, most comply with the ‘no arms allowed’ request. Understand, the UN can only request, not dictate since it cannot enforce policy.

Outside of onboard weaponry, what are the main issues? Safety? Security? Both? Training?

You should cite this as the article you got it from:

Gee. I rather enjoy my annual MSC Small Arms refresher each year. Get to blaze away and somebody else pays the Rangemaster and buys my ammo.

FYI, a decade or so ago we used to ship two pallets of “half” (8"x8"x8") concrete blocks for the run from Subic to DGAR, one on each side.

When the little scumbag Filipino pirates hooked up and came alongside, we’d run down the deck with a half-block (22 LBS) in hand and drop it into their sorry wooden boats.

Or their heads, if they were persistent.

That Captain was ex-UDT and thought this was great fun.

Im surprised there is not more interest in less than lethal systems which are currently on the market.

It strikes me that the dilema has less to do with making a ‘pro active’ defence of a vessel (say with small arms) - and far more to do with actually doing [I]something[/I].

Current anti-piracy methods strike me as alarmingly passive - can we be sure that ships crews arent just being incredibly lucky in suffering relatively few casualties to date?

B.

Having experienced attempted piracy both at sea and ashore, I find but one issue stands to reason; whether to be a victim or not. This choice amounts solely to placing your self totally at the mercy of the assailants or defending yourself. I choose to defend my life, property, and vessel by any means available. I will resist with a hand-full of rocks, if needed, but heavier weapons would be preferred.

Having experienced a gunshot wound myself - by accidental firing from an idiot, I must ask - who is going to carry and fire the weapons on board?
Arr you gonna give it to the Filipino AB watch on deck?

You take a cigarrete on the bridge wing, and Filipino fires by accident, and hits you somewhere?

The point is:
Americans grow up with weapons at home.
English do not even have legal handguns at home.
Somebody using the gun must be familiar with it.

Either American, or ex army, or ex police.
Not all the seaman comply with it.

Thats why a trained security guards with licnece to use the weapons should be engaged.

Or, alternatively:
Additional small arms training for merchant mariners.
This is making us more qualified - and if we are assigned with weapons to protect the lives and property, we also qualify for better pay.

For that, I would sign

The question of the day is:
Are the owners going to accecpt this?
Are the flag states going to accept this - as some are still banning fire arms on board?

Hi all,

Just persusing this fine forum as I’m just about to start a cadetship in the UK. Theres a lot of useful posts on here and I see a lot of discussion on piracy.

Having no previous experience of being at sea, and having read some of what is being discussed here and on the news etc I thought I may as well put my thoughts in on the topic. 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.

I know there are arguments regarding the legality of detaining/killing pirates, but it is my belief that if you board vessels with guns and the intent taking hostages etc then you forfeit your rights. Furthermore if the UN passed one of its fine resolutions, i’m sure a lot of red tape could be done away with.

I know that the area they are covering is huge but the response times of the task force seem pitiful. I’m sure the USA could put a satellite overhead, to monitor the coast etc. and send heli’s and planes to intercept them.

The fact they’re using “motherships” is also ludicrous to me. You spot a “mothership” you send a warship to intercept, you tell them to get ready to be boarded. The ship is searched, if everything is in fact okay and they’re fishermen you send them on their way. If they refuse to be boarded you tell them to get off then blow it up, whether they get off or stay on.If you have prisoners you set up a trial under the jurisdiction of the UN and then lock them up somewhere for a long time.

The problem is that unfortunately, armies (and politicians) of the western world no longer have the balls to fight wars properly, and this is being reflected in the task force. If they’re running around with guns trying to hijack ships you HAVE to kill some them to send the others the right message, but lets face it they’re not that smart. If they think all that will happen is they get sent back, or even maddeningly that they can then apply for asylum (the UK is mad) then they are going to carry on operating as before.

As to preventative measures, I believe that as others have said a good look out, and keeping a close watch when in dangerous area would be essential. It has been noted that swift action by the crew (changing course, increasing speed) deters pirates.

On the view of having “security” personnel on board I don’t believe that it should really be necessary. The law on carrying guns aboard, plus where to store them, laws on entering other countries, and the dangers involved etc would probably outweigh the benefits.

That being said I do believe that seafarers should have the right to defend themselves by any means necessary. This is not a case of a home burgulary or even defending yourself on a street, seafarers are often isolated from any help other that that which can be provided by other members of the crew. There are no police to come to the rescue.

Simple defenses could be implemented, barb wire around the hull. With a rubber backing between it and the hull you could also electrify it if the need aroused (with very high amperages :slight_smile:

However and as I mentioned in another post, in my opinion, there is a very simple alternative to guns, its called a flamethrower, such as they used to clear bunkers in WW2. I would defy any pirate to climb over the railing or even carry on up the rope when he sees a 20ft long burst of flame fly over his head.

Obviously its not ideal on a tanker but… a flame thrower has several advantages over any other “deterrant”.

  1. It is a VERY visible deterrant. Even more so than guns etc. Give it a quick blast to put them off!!!
  2. It does not require ammunition, except for fuel (petrol) and a propellant (nitrogen)
  3. You can lower the range by lowering the pressure, less risk to the ship and operator etc.
  4. Fire proof clothing is readily available and can be worn by the operator
  5. Most ships don’t carry particularly flammable materials on their deck, and any damage to the railings is likely to be minimal
  6. They’re fairly simple devices, tried and tested, and need little maintenance unlike guns.
  7. Ownership is unrestricted in most countries (though UK is an exception)
  8. Even on a tanker I would say its more likely that capture by pirates would lead to a fire than careful use of a flamethrower (a family member was a chief eng for shell when a couple of their tankers got hit during the first gulf war, but suffered only minor damage)
  9. If said pirate does still attempt to climb over the railing and is subjected to a good torching he has the means to readily extinguish himself by letting go off the rope, so its hardly leathal :wink:

Thoughts and opinions please.

People have the right to be safe at work and at home, so why not seafarers. If there is no one else to defend them why can’t they defend themselves. Being taking hostage and expecting to be released after a ransom is paid is FAR from guaranteed.

According to the general secretary of the UK seafarers union Nautilus; ‘Six killed, eight missing feared dead, 19 injured, and more than 560 held hostage. That’s the stark reality of modern-day piracy for seafarers,’ he says. ‘And that’s just in the first half of this year. Over five years, it’s 63 killed, 165 injured, and almost 2,000 held hostage.’

Hi there!
It’s nice to here young chaps without experience to think in advance.
I am master on large container ships, and last contract have passed the GOA - high risk area several times, and was cooperating with local task force.
In my carrier had some experience with piracy / thefts and attacks on my vessels (I was in different ranks then), and can say that youR fresh thinking does not provide good answers.

Modern western society lives in demilitarised and legal world. But if you are saying that they have no balls to fight the war you are wrong: you had UK and the states fighting quite well in Iraq, or Afgan.
So its not the point.

Legality is the problem:
When a warship at deep sea can stop another vessel?
The answer is:
Only if stopped vsl / civilian vessel flyes the same flag of a warship.
Or in the state of war (and nobody is having a war with Somalia), you can stop the vsl flying the flag of a country having a war with you, to check for contraband.

Furthermore;
A warship may have some legal rights in it’s intervention when: you have another vessel flying the same flag under attack.
Or, the citizens of warship flag state under imminent threat.

Obviously, the task force have a bit wider rules of engagement in GOA but not by much.
Use of fire power?
Unly if fired upon, or a warning shots across the bow.

Next question is:
Why should american warship protect, say, a vsl manned by Filipinos, Cyprus flag, Greek owner?
On the other hand: the same greek owner doesnt give any support to the crew by equipment, weapons, or security service. Filipino govt - NIL, and cyprus flag state has no warships as a part of task force?

Then the same commander of the same US warship - stops the pirate skiff, full of people Somali nationality?
He can not put them in front of firing squad or hang them.
So he must send them somwhere for a trial?
Which country has jurisdictions?
For somalis - somalia.

So- take away their guns, and send them home.

Obviously the legal problem is obvious and taskforce commanders should have different rules of engagement, and better legal back up.

Another problem is flag state.
They are either banning fire arms on their vessels, or not sending their warships to the area, or at leas should participate in expenses of taskforce.
Flag states should give more to it.

[quote=Vstar;21805]Hi all,

The fact they’re using “motherships” is also ludicrous to me. You spot a “mothership” you send a warship to intercept, you tell them to get ready to be boarded. The ship is searched, if everything is in fact okay and they’re fishermen you send them on their way. If they refuse to be boarded you tell them to get off then blow it up, whether they get off or stay on.If you have prisoners you set up a trial under the jurisdiction of the UN and then lock them up somewhere for a long time.
’[/quote]

The motherships are smaller vessels that have been hijacked by the pirates and the crew held hostage. They seize a fishing vessel and then use that vessels to launch attacks on larger vessels. The pirates are only vulnerable at sea after they leave their mothership and before they gain control of another vessel.

The problem as I see it is that the IMO, an arm of the evil UN, is populated by rabid anti-gun forces. The same anti-gun forces that want the US to submit to international anti-gun treaties and legislation. I am an American and a gun owner and a damned good shot. Unlike our foreigner in chief, I bow before no king or any foreign head of state. Our Congress should mandate firearms training for all American Merchant Marines and require they be carried on all American ships that trade in known pirate infested waters. Screw the UN.

I’ve been under the impression the U.S. has been officially at war for several years now.
History dictates that under declared war conditions the only rules are “no rules”!