Does Crime Pay? "Somali Jack" Sparrow says "Yes!"

[Darth Rotor]

The latest raid on the shipping lanes off of the Horn of Africa lands a supertanker that can haul about 2 million barrels of oil. (That's quite a bit.)
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-piracy19-2008nov19,0,5645455.story
World oil markets took only brief notice of the hijacking, jumping to $58.98 per barrel before closing at $54.95, down $2.09 from Friday, on the New York Mercantile Exchange. Had the hijacking taken place earlier in the year, before the world's leading economies began reeling and international demand for oil fell, it might have kicked the price of oil up $5 or more, analysts said.
Perhaps, but let's look at the profit motive: is this an issue of trying to fence a shipload of oil? No, it's more of a "kidnap for profit" deal that seems to be increasing in pupularity in more and more places. (While Mexico is locally famous for it, Mexico is not the only place this goes on.)
{A} ... Ukrainian ship and its crew are still being held off the coast of the East African country as its owners negotiate with the pirates, who are seeking a multimillion-dollar ransom. Pirates typically attack within 200 miles of shore and go after much smaller prey, Christensen said. But in the case of the oil tanker, the assailants, who are holding hostage a multinational crew of 25, appear to be "fundamentally changing the way they're doing business," he said.
From here: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/18/world/africa/18pirates.html?partner=rss&emc=rss
Most ships do not have heavy security, while the pirates are fast and well armed. The ransom payments have been rising. Only a few years ago the average ransom was in the tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of dollars. In 2008 they have mostly ranged from $500,000 to $2 million.
I find it disturbing that as pirate attacks rose a few years ago, the international community, to inlclude my country, did not assemble a blue hulled flotilla (with significant air support) to deal severely with this criminal enterprise. I guess that only happens when the enabling behavior continues, and the pirates up their price. :p
The pirates’ profits are set to reach a record $50 million in 2008, Somali officials say. Shipping firms are usually prepared to pay, because the sums are still low compared with the value of the ships.
The cost of a security detail is how much, in comparison? Doubtless some clever MBA sort did a cost benefit risk analysis and found it to be cheaper just to pay, rather than increase payroll. :p This attitude strikes me as similar to how airline hijacking was dealt with for so long.

Action on this matter is long overdue. Hang them from the highest yardarm in the nearest port city.

DR

[Sir Robin Goodfellow]

Shoot first, ask questions later.

[geni]

The cost of a security detail is how much, in comparison? Doubtless some clever MBA sort did a cost benefit risk analysis and found it to be cheaper just to pay, rather than increase payroll. :p This attitude strikes me as similar to how airline hijacking was dealt with for so long.


Cost wise most of the ships could go via the cape of good hope if too many ships were lost.


Action on this matter is long overdue. Hang them from the highest yardarm in the nearest port city.

First you have to work out who they are.

[sackett]

Can somebody bring us up to speed on current maritime law re piracy? Are there any "international waters" left anywhere? If so, and if you caught some pirates in them, what, aside from common decency, would prevent you from icing them then and there?

[dudalb]

First you have to work out who they are.

That should not be that hard.
This is a problem that is getting worse and worse.
The only way to solve it is by shutting down the bases in Somalia that the pirates work out of. That is what killed Piracy in the Carribean in the 1700's.
And if the pirates are killed in the process of trying to take a ship, you won't see any tears from me.

[Darth Rotor]

Can somebody bring us up to speed on current maritime law re piracy? Are there any "international waters" left anywhere? If so, and if you caught some pirates in them, what, aside from common decency, would prevent you from icing them then and there?
With some exceptions, international waters are any part of the high seas beyond 12 nm from the coast. The exceptions include a variety of maritime zones that I'd need to referesh on to give you a better answer. Might be a trick to get ILOS in a pithy enough form once I do. :cool:

Common decency would dictate that one ice pirates on the spot, however, the most common reason not to is the desire to:

1. Not lose the crew/hostages
2. Not lose the cargo
3. Capture them in order to hang them, or whatever, or even find out more about who they are, etc. (Geni made a decent point along those lines)

DR

[geni]

Can somebody bring us up to speed on current maritime law re piracy? Are there any "international waters" left anywhere? If so, and if you caught some pirates in them, what, aside from common decency, would prevent you from icing them then and there?

There are various rules of the sea and most contries will have local laws that prevent that.

[geni]

That should not be that hard.

Really? How would you go about identifying them in the general somali population?

[dudalb]

Really? How would you go about identifying them in the general somali population?


With all the high tech gear we should be able to track them down to the port they operate out of.
So let's just sit back and do nothing about it?

[plumjam]

a supertanker that can haul about 2 million barrels of oil. (That's quite a bit.)
They'd better be careful, or there'll be one massive argument about black spots.

[timhau]

Shoot first, ask questions later.

The problem is that right now they're sitting on two million barrels of oil, and I suspect everyone wants to keep that oil mostly inside the tanker.

[geni]

With all the high tech gear we should be able to track them down to the port they operate out of.
So let's just sit back and do nothing about it?

Yeah we know which port it is doesn't help much. Telling the difference between a pirate and the average somalli inhabitant of the port is somewhat tricky.

[WildCat]

The pirates launch their attack boats from "mother ships" disguised as fishing boats. I think it's long overdue that the various navies in the area start boarding every fishing boat they see to search for evidence of piracy (weaponry, ladders, etc). If found, sink the boat on the spot.

Without the mother ship the pirates can't operate.

[The Man]

The pirates launch their attack boats from "mother ships" disguised as fishing boats. I think it's long overdue that the various navies in the area start boarding every fishing boat they see to search for evidence of piracy (weaponry, ladders, etc). If found, sink the boat on the spot.

Without the mother ship the pirates can't operate.


I saw part of an episode of “Shadow Force” on the History Channel where then had mercenaries practicing for boarding and inspecting suspected pirate mother ships. I did not see the end of it though.

[dudalb]

The pirates launch their attack boats from "mother ships" disguised as fishing boats. I think it's long overdue that the various navies in the area start boarding every fishing boat they see to search for evidence of piracy (weaponry, ladders, etc). If found, sink the boat on the spot.

Without the mother ship the pirates can't operate.

Can you say "US Navy Seal?".

[geni]

The pirates launch their attack boats from "mother ships" disguised as fishing boats. I think it's long overdue that the various navies in the area start boarding every fishing boat they see to search for evidence of piracy (weaponry, ladders, etc). If found, sink the boat on the spot.

Without the mother ship the pirates can't operate.

They can. Just need to improve their own boats and they have. Your other problem is that this is somalia. Weaponry isn't evidence of piracy.

[Jimbo07]

Can you say "US Navy Seal?".

... or even every navy's trained boarding parties.

Problems:
- there is not an infinite supply of trained boarding parties, even in the U.S. navy
- attacking ports may carry political ramifications
- it's not a problem that can be solved with missiles

[plumjam]

No need for Navy Seals, vaseline should do the job.

[Travis]

Wasn't the US Navy developing the Littoral Combat Ship to deal with things like this?

[tomwaits]

If it weren't for the crew, I would be in complete support of totally wiping out the pirates with chemical weapons. Serves them right.

[dudalb]

... or even every navy's trained boarding parties.

Problems:
- there is not an infinite supply of trained boarding parties, even in the U.S. navy
- attacking ports may carry political ramifications
- it's not a problem that can be solved with missiles


So let's keep ignoring the problem till it becomes a major crisis?
Brilliant.
As for political ramifications,I don't give a damn what the Somali Government thinks since it is pretty pathetic excuse for a Government if it cannot enforce laws in it;s own territory.
There is no "diplomatic" or "peaceful" solutiion to this problem anymore then there is a diplomatic or peaceful solution to a bunch of outlaws running wild.

[dudalb]

Wasn't the US Navy developing the Littoral Combat Ship to deal with things like this?


it's not a case of the US and other nations not having the military strength to take on the pirates...it does not require that much...but the will. I predict this will keep going on until the pirates pull something off in which a lot of people get killed.

[geni]

As for political ramifications,I don't give a damn what the Somali Government thinks since it is pretty pathetic excuse for a Government if it cannot enforce laws in it;s own territory.

Wrong goverment. I doubt the US goverment would really want to explain why it had just killed rather a lot of "civilians".

The problem is that unless they are actively engaged in priaracy (say in the act of boarding a ship) we don't know who these pirates are.

[Darth Rotor]

Wasn't the US Navy developing the Littoral Combat Ship to deal with things like this?

No. Littoral combat ship is a purpose built combatant for power projection.

Any multi purpose warship -- frigate, destroyer, cruiser -- now in the fleet is sufficient to handle this misison.

DR

[dudalb]

They have just now seized an Iranian Freighter.
Looks as if they are not some kind of Islamic group, but are in it for the money.
12 Ships in Seven Days...the pace is picking up.
Another problem on Obama's plate.

[dudalb]

Wrong goverment. I doubt the US goverment would really want to explain why it had just killed rather a lot of "civilians".

The problem is that unless they are actively engaged in priaracy (say in the act of boarding a ship) we don't know who these pirates are.

Then what the hell should we do? Just let this get out of hand until the Red Sea becomes a no man's land for commerce?

[rwguinn]

Then what the hell should we do? Just let this get out of hand until the Red Sea becomes a no man's land for commerce?
Works for me.
They created the damn problem, let 'em solve it. Anytime the West tries to help, we get more terrorism, and the Europeans sell 'em the weapons...

[dudalb]

Change that to Seven Ships in 12 days. My point that the pace if really picking up remains the same.

[dudalb]

Works for me.
They created the damn problem, let 'em solve it. Anytime the West tries to help, we get more terrorism, and the Europeans sell 'em the weapons...

A lot of American ships use the Red Sea also. Read a Map.
I think they are avoiding American ships on purpose, but if they continue to get away with it, that will stop.
Sorry, but piracy on this level is not something that can be tolerated.

[Donal]

- it's not a problem that can be solved with missiles


I don't understand that sentence.

[Jimbo07]

I don't understand that sentence.

I know... it was hard for me to write. I have trouble believing that there's any kind of problem that can't be solved with a few missiles!

:D

[DanishDynamite]

My understanding is that a corridor has been made (http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/africa/11/10/piracy.corridor.ap/index.html) in which no ships have been succesfully attacked. The problem is that the pirates now attack up to 450 miles from Somalia shores, basically they hit before ships reach the corridor.

[dudalb]

My understanding is that a corridor has been made (http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/africa/11/10/piracy.corridor.ap/index.html) in which no ships have been succesfully attacked. The problem is that the pirates now attack up to 450 miles from Somalia shores, basically they hit before ships reach the corridor.

Next step it probably some form of convoying, but that has the problem of reducing the speed of traffic to a trickle.
The bases they operate from,whether on land or mother ships, have got to be shut down. Only real solution, as much as some well intentioned but nieve people would like to deny it.

[Jimbo07]

.
The bases they operate from,whether on land or mother ships, have got to be shut down. Only real solution, as much as some well intentioned but nieve people would like to deny it.

Who are these well intentioned but naive people? Commodore Christensen?


The use of military power, Christensen acknowledged, is limited in what it can do to stop a problem driven by lawlessness and poverty in Somalia, a nation at war with itself for most of the past 17 years.

"We can be there and suppress the piracy," Christensen said, "but the problem is on shore."


The decision to invade another country, even Somalia, is difficult (unless, of course, your last name is Bush :D).

[geni]

A lot of American ships use the Red Sea also. Read a Map.
I think they are avoiding American ships on purpose, but if they continue to get away with it, that will stop.

I doubt it. With modern flags of convience I suspect you will find very few american flagged ships in that area. And no we can't ask liberia to sort it out.


Sorry, but piracy on this level is not something that can be tolerated.

True but not something it is easy to solve.

[DanishDynamite]

Next step it probably some form of convoying, but that has the problem of reducing the speed of traffic to a trickle.
The bases they operate from,whether on land or mother ships, have got to be shut down. Only real solution, as much as some well intentioned but nieve people would like to deny it.No hope in hell of hitting their on shore bases, but perhaps some hope of hitting their "mother" ships. What does international maritime laws have to say on this, I wonder.

[geni]

Then what the hell should we do? Just let this get out of hand until the Red Sea becomes a no man's land for commerce?

Well that is one aproach yes. There are other options but they require the CIA to be competant.

Your options are:

1)stabise somalia. Unless you are prepared to back islamic extreamists that isn't going to happen
2)accept that the area will become comercialy unviable and the added costs that will result.
3)Large scale convoy/defensive corridor which is expensive
4)inteligence lead shore strikes which is hard.
5)Kill everyone south of Somaliland which is probably politicaly unacceptable.

[geni]

No hope in hell of hitting their on shore bases, but perhaps some hope of hitting their "mother" ships. What does international maritime laws have to say on this, I wonder.

It says if you have UN a mandate you can do whatever you like and getting an UN mandate will not in this case be a problem.

[DanishDynamite]

Well that is one aproach yes. There are other options but they require the CIA to be competant.

Your options are:

1)stabise somalia. Unless you are prepared to back islamic extreamists that isn't going to happen
2)accept that the area will become comercialy unviable and the added costs that will result.
3)Large scale convoy/defensive corridor which is expensive
4)inteligence lead shore strikes which is hard.
5)Kill everyone south of Somaliland which is probably politicaly unacceptable.
1) very expensive.
4) unhelpful
5) expensive and political suicide.

The only inexpensive (relatively) solution is massive millitary presence.

[WildCat]

They can. Just need to improve their own boats and they have. Your other problem is that this is somalia. Weaponry isn't evidence of piracy.
Weaponry + 30 ft. ladders sure as hell is.

[WildCat]

It also strikes me that a bait ship operated by Marines would be a nice trick. What looks like a nice fat target and all of a sudden the tarp comes off the "lifeboat" to reveal a mini-gun and next thing you know there's about 300 20mm holes in the pirate boat in a span of 3 seconds. Drop the pieces of the pirates that remain over their home port so the message gets around, maybe with a dvd showing the homies exactly what happened.

Anyone else want to roll the dice?

Yaaar!

Probably some sort of stupid law against that though.

[DanishDynamite]

It also strikes me that a bait ship operated by Marines would be a nice trick. What looks like a nice fat target and all of a sudden the tarp comes off the "lifeboat" to reveal a mini-gun and next thing you know there's about 300 20mm holes in the pirate boat in a span of 3 seconds. Drop the pieces of the pirates that remain over their home port so the message gets around, maybe with a dvd showing the homies exactly what happened.

Anyone else want to roll the dice?

Yaaar!

Probably some sort of stupid law against that though.
You clearly have no idea how large the area under pirate attack is.

[WildCat]

You clearly have no idea how large the area under pirate attack is.
No problem! Just start mounting them with a marine crew on dozens of ships in the area.

And if you want overkill to a ridiculous degree (and of course you do!) the Dutch make a hell of a 30mm mini-gun:

nY6nm-6eCzM

eta: Don't tell Steve Grenard, but I think they got a whale caught in there... :p

[geni]

Weaponry + 30 ft. ladders sure as hell is.

Fishermen haveing a bunch of rope on board isn't.

[WildCat]

Fishermen haveing a bunch of rope on board isn't.
Except they use ladders, even if they're rope ones.

[Kestrel]

No hope in hell of hitting their on shore bases, but perhaps some hope of hitting their "mother" ships. What does international maritime laws have to say on this, I wonder.

I suspect that sinking a ship caught in the act of piracy is allowed.

So why can't we monitor the movements of all ships and small boats in the area, then send intercept teams to investigate suspicious behavior?

[geni]

No problem! Just start mounting them with a marine crew on dozens of ships in the area.


Q-ship? Main problems are that it would take rather a long time cost rather a lot and the ships are not american. You also have the problem that you are going to have a hard time makeing piracy dangerious enough compared to normal somalia to offset the potential rewards.

[geni]

Except they use ladders, even if they're rope ones.

Can be changed very quickly. Stop and search is likely to be effective to a limited extent.

[geni]

I suspect that sinking a ship caught in the act of piracy is allowed.

So why can't we monitor the movements of all ships and small boats in the area, then send intercept teams to investigate suspicious behavior?

Because it is rather a large area ans small fiberglass boats don't show up on radar too well. The time between suspicious behavior starting and boarding the ship and haveing hostages is also rather short.

[Just thinking]

And if you want overkill to a ridiculous degree (and of course you do!) the Dutch make a hell of a 30mm mini-gun:

Suweeeeet!

And it leaves no residue!

[Toke]

I am a merchant mariner and I am a litle surprised at the legal technicalities surrounding pirates.

A danish warship (Absalon) captured 10 pirates and then had to release them as there were no way to procecute them.

Wildcat´s Q-ships are tempting but not practical, there are simply too many ships in the area to make them a likely target.

The english channel and øresund have no pirates, not due to military patrolls, but due to conditions ashore. So pirates are best fought from shore.

There were an interwiev with a shipping company complaining about lack of efford from the goverment.
Interesting part is that when the seafarers mention warzone pay the area is suddently safe. And they expect action from denmark even if their ships are registrated in liberia, malta, isle of mann, or panama, and pay taxes there.

So unless there are changes in somalia, we must hope for a change in un mandate and number of warships off somalia.
I am sailing between masailles and casablanca, outside of danger.

[DanishDynamite]

No problem! Just start mounting them with a marine crew on dozens of ships in the area.

And if you want overkill to a ridiculous degree (and of course you do!) the Dutch make a hell of a 30mm mini-gun:

nY6nm-6eCzM

eta: Don't tell Steve Grenard, but I think they got a whale caught in there... :p
The area is over a million square miles. I suspect your super weapon wouldn't have the range or the accuracy.

[Toke]

Perhaps it would help to get the islamic courts bach in power in somalia. They installed some sort of order.

[geni]

And they expect action from denmark even if their ships are registrated in liberia, malta, isle of mann, or panama, and pay taxes there.

I'm feeling it may be a good time to reform the ship flagging system.

[geni]

Perhaps it would help to get the islamic courts bach in power in somalia. They installed some sort of order.

Perhaps but the pirates are getting to the point where they would be strong enough to hold them off even if they wanted to do something about it.

[Toke]

I'm feeling it may be a good time to reform the ship flagging system.

As in single payer naval protection instead of mercenary security companies??
:D

[Toke]

Perhaps but the pirates are getting to the point where they would be strong enough to hold them off even if they wanted to do something about it.

The islamic courts were kicked out with support from ethiopia and the US, they could be put back the same way.

[Kestrel]

I am a merchant mariner and I am a litle surprised at the legal technicalities surrounding pirates.

A danish warship (Absalon) captured 10 pirates and then had to release them as there were no way to procecute them.

Is this simply a problem with Danish law? If a US or UK warship intercepted the pirates, I believe they could be prosecuted.

Wildcat´s Q-ships are tempting but not practical, there are simply too many ships in the area to make them a likely target.

Putting a military team onboard ships that are likely targets would also be much simpler.

The english channel and øresund have no pirates, not due to military patrolls, but due to conditions ashore. So pirates are best fought from shore.

There were an interwiev with a shipping company complaining about lack of efford from the goverment.
Interesting part is that when the seafarers mention warzone pay the area is suddently safe. And they expect action from denmark even if their ships are registrated in liberia, malta, isle of mann, or panama, and pay taxes there.

So unless there are changes in somalia, we must hope for a change in un mandate and number of warships off somalia.
I am sailing between masailles and casablanca, outside of danger.

You are right, the problem with pirates off the coast of Somalia is due to conditions in Somalia. Until we can fix that, we will have to put more warships in the area.

[Darth Rotor]

Works for me.

They created the damn problem, let 'em solve it.
Anytime the West tries to help,
we get more terrorism,
and the Europeans sell 'em the weapons...

????
Profit!!!!

That's how the joke goes, right? :cool:

Where is the downside? Something fun for our Navies to do, the feeling of doing good by putting down pirates, and profit from the arms sales.

I see no downside. :cool:

DR

[Darth Rotor]

I am a merchant mariner and I am a litle surprised at the legal technicalities surrounding pirates.

A danish warship (Absalon) captured 10 pirates and then had to release them as there were no way to procecute them.
Shark bait.

Where is the problem here?
I am sailing between masailles and casablanca, outside of danger.
How cool! :) Hope you enjoy your job.

DR

[WildCat]

The islamic courts were kicked out with support from ethiopia and the US, they could be put back the same way.
You can bet that the ransom money being paid now is flowing uphill to the Islamic Courts.

Putting them back in power won't help things. Might even make it worse.

[WildCat]

Putting a military team onboard ships that are likely targets would also be much simpler.
That's what I was getting at in Post #43.

[Toke]

Yes, shark bait were my first throught, unfortunately it is not legal.

A few hundred years ago there were similiar problems from marokko to tunis, best guess is that it was solved through stronger goverments that could control the countries and see the benefit in trade over piracy.

If the islamic courts controlled the country they would have more to loose from being unpopular abrourd and more to gain from trade.

[Toke]

Try add up the cost of teams for all ships passing through the suez channel, then present that to ship owners.

[Toke]

Include the ships passing from the persian gulf and south around africa.

[Toke]

Q-ships are tempting but not practical

[Travis]

It says if you have UN a mandate you can do whatever you like and getting an UN mandate will not in this case be a problem.

Don't count on that, especially if the US is involved. The UN is so stupidly anti-American anymore that they wouldn't approve of the US shooting down enemy bombers headed towards our shores.

[Toke]

Don't count on that, especially if the US is involved. The UN is so stupidly anti-American anymore that they wouldn't approve of the US shooting down enemy bombers headed towards our shores.

Have you wondered why??

Because you are free??


I don´t think a stronger anti-pirate mandate will be a problem, unless it is coubled with some licence to attack somalia.

[WildCat]

Have you wondered why??

Because you are free??


I don´t think a stronger anti-pirate mandate will be a problem, unless it is coubled with some licence to attack somalia.
Why would the US need a license to attack Somalia? The UN couldn't even stop Ethiopia from invading it.

Not that I think we will, just that the UN is toothless in that regard.

[Toke]

Personally I find a few shells in the speedboat basin of select ports a great idea.
Absalon does have a canon.

Violating the soverenety of a country that does not controll its own territory is not that big a problem, who will complain?

[DanishDynamite]

Is this simply a problem with Danish law? If a US or UK warship intercepted the pirates, I believe they could be prosecuted.
I suspect it is a problem for all ships in the area. As no UN mandate has been given, all captured suspects will have been caught in international waters.

[Kestrel]

Personally I find a few shells in the speedboat basin of select ports a great idea.
Absalon does have a canon.

Violating the soverenety of a country that does not controll its own territory is not that big a problem, who will complain?

So where exactly have the pirates been taking the ships they have seized? News reports indicated Haradhere, but Google Earth doesn't seem to know about that place.

[geni]

Don't count on that, especially if the US is involved. The UN is so stupidly anti-American anymore that they wouldn't approve of the US shooting down enemy bombers headed towards our shores.

Well russia is already involved and china normaly abstains so no risk of veto. The arab countries are loseing money so they will support dito europe. With the posible exception of south aftica I can't see why anyone would have a reason to oppose.

[geni]

Why would the US need a license to attack Somalia? The UN couldn't even stop Ethiopia from invading it.

Why would the UN or anyone other than Eritrea have wanted to? It's somalia. There isn't anything you can do to them that they won't eventualy do to themselves.

[geni]

So where exactly have the pirates been taking the ships they have seized? News reports indicated Haradhere, but Google Earth doesn't seem to know about that place.

Eyl and in at least one case Bosaso.

[JoeyDonuts]

I was on station off the coast of Somalia for two months back in 2006. Thing is, this is a ridiculous amount of waterspace to patrol and enforce. One option for dealing with it would be to assign merchant ships into convoys and provide one or two picket ships at the front and back of the formation to provide cover. These ships would come from the international Task Force 150, which has been operating in that area for some time. The neat thing about TF150 is that it truly is a multi-national force. I was on the USS Barry, an Arleigh Burke-class destroyer, and during the time we were CHOP'ed (under control) of TF 150 we worked and took orders from the British at one point and the Germans at another. Now, obviously if we received emergent tasking or 5th Fleet countermanded a TF150 order, we'd go with that. Anyway, back to the pirates...

Here's a couple options I see for dealing with this and the negative sides of each:

1. Group merchant ships traversing the east coast of Africa into formations have have picket ships from TF 150 riding shotgun. No pirate in the world would be dumb enough to try anything then. At least I hope not.

This would be very expensive in diesel fuel for the warships riding shotgun, much more so than I believe any gov't would be willing to spend for an indefinite amount of time. On top of that it would be a logistic nightmare - coordinating multiple shipping companies to have their ships wait on station at their last port of call until enough were ready for the formation. Don't see this one happening.

2. Have SEALs/VBSS boarding teams on hot standby ready to covertly insert and re-take whatever ship the pirates had.

The interior of most Group III merchants is a tactical nightmare. You'd have to expect the pirates to have a little more familiarity with the interior as well, so they would have the advantage. The SEALs and VBSS could get the job done, but it would most likely be a bloodbath on both sides, plus the pirates might decide to get into the hostage executing business. This is probably a bad option and would not be undertaken unless they threatened something drastic, like scuttling the oil tanker or if threatening to execute hostages.

3. Have shipping companies pay for armed security details on ships that are traversing the East Coast of Africa.

While not directly addressing the pirate's operations, this is probably the best option for these companies. The berthing and feeding of the details would be an issue, plus the added expense in hiring them. The cost of this would probably be less than the ransom they are paying to these mooks. Plus, insurance on shipments going through the area could offer a discount on their already astronomical fees if the ship had an embarked security detail.

As far as tracking them, as long as they continue to use small craft it doesn't give us much to go on as far as ELINT. Their "mother" craft most likely have some kind of search radar, because the latest seizure was well out into open waters and they would have needed it to locate their target in total darkness or inclement weather. This isn't a guarantee though. They could be navigating from experience and charts and simply sighting their targets visually.

I think what is needed is for us to work with whatever NGO's are friendly to us out there. (No doubt the intel services of every country they've stung are already working this angle.) Of course if that's dry, and we can tie their activity to a specific area or facility...well, then it's RGM-109 Tomahawk time, baby.

[rwguinn]

We have a Darwin Winner (http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/nov/19/indian-navy-boat-sinks-pirate-mother-ship/)
What do you do when the Navy wants to inspect? Shoot at 'em!

Actually--if the countries which flag the ships would simply replace every 3rd crew with Marines (at random and off-shore so nobody could tell), the situation would solve itself fairly quickly--and cheaply...)

[richardm]

So where exactly have the pirates been taking the ships they have seized? News reports indicated Haradhere, but Google Earth doesn't seem to know about that place.

Reportedly (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/nov/18/somalia-oil), the Sirius Star is anchored off Hobyo (http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&geocode=&q=Hobyo&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=39.729049,71.191406&ie=UTF8&ll=3.601142,53.4375&spn=24.889816,35.595703&t=h&z=5). Although Eyl is more normally given as the pirate's base, Google doesn't seem to know about it. It is in that neck of the woods, anyway.

Edit: in fact it does (http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&geocode=&q=eyl,+somalia&sll=54.594442,-1.291794&sspn=0.118947,0.278091&ie=UTF8&ll=7.971178,49.827032&spn=0.050831,0.069523&t=h&z=14), but the search box doesn't seem to be keen to find it.

[Kestrel]

This would be very expensive in diesel fuel for the warships riding shotgun, much more so than I believe any gov't would be willing to spend for an indefinite amount of time.

Nations built navies to protect commerce. If they no longer can do so, why don't we just bring them all back and cut them up for scrap?

On a more constructive note, why don't we use lots of small patrol boats instead of just a few warships? Intercept and investigate all small craft in the area. Back up the patrol boats with aircraft and larger ships. Sink any craft that runs or shoots back.

[Kestrel]

Reportedly (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/nov/18/somalia-oil), the Sirius Star is anchored off Hobyo (http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&geocode=&q=Hobyo&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=39.729049,71.191406&ie=UTF8&ll=3.601142,53.4375&spn=24.889816,35.595703&t=h&z=5). Although Eyl is more normally given as the pirate's base, Google doesn't seem to know about it. It is in that neck of the woods, anyway.

Edit: in fact it does (http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&geocode=&q=hobyo&sll=5.287887,50.119629&sspn=13.055634,17.797852&ie=UTF8&ll=7.963783,49.841452&spn=0.050832,0.069523&t=h&z=14), but you need to know where to look and searching wont find it.

Eyl isn't much more than a wide spot in the road. Wouldn't take much of a force on the ground to surround and capture the entire place.

[richardm]

Eyl isn't much more than a wide spot in the road. Wouldn't take much of a force on the ground to surround and capture the entire place.

If it's known to be a pirate den, I'm not sure what the problem is exactly. Presumably everyone agrees that something should be done, but tends to feel that someone else should be doing it.

[Darth Rotor]

This is apparently breaking news. http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20081118/ts_afp/somaliaunrestpiracy

May be slightly off, but a first report. Tried to find confirmation in BBC and did not yet.
The British tanker Trafalgar was surrounded in the Gulf of Aden by at least eight speedboats. It radioed for help and a German frigate patrolling 12 miles away despatched a Sea Lynx helicopter.

The German navy said that the pirates fled as the helicopter approached them.
If this story stands up, I'd like to tip my mein hut to the German Helicopter pilot in the Lynx, and the captain of his frigate who sent him to assist the Trafalgar.

Ya done good! :)

DR

[Donal]

What we need is some ninjas.

[geni]

Eyl isn't much more than a wide spot in the road. Wouldn't take much of a force on the ground to surround and capture the entire place.

What do you do once you have captured it though?

[Mark6]

Does piracy pay? Yes!

Pirates' luxury lifestyles on lawless coast (http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/africa/11/19/somalia.pirates.boomtown.ap/index.html)

[Kestrel]

What do you do once you have captured it though?

Remove the pirates, weapons, speedboats and any loot or evidence linking the pirates to the crimes. Then leave and let the villagers go back to fishing for a living.

[Darth Rotor]

Does piracy pay? Yes!

Pirates' luxury lifestyles on lawless coast (http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/africa/11/19/somalia.pirates.boomtown.ap/index.html)

Captain Morgan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Morgan) would approve.

[Travis]

I still say we should tear a page out of the Dealing With Barbary Coast Pirates handbook and deal out some hurt.

[dudalb]

I still say we should tear a page out of the Dealing With Barbary Coast Pirates handbook and deal out some hurt.


Looks as if Obama might be the first President since Jefferson to have to deal with a major Piracy problem.

[Gurdur]

Can somebody bring us up to speed on current maritime law re piracy? Are there any "international waters" left anywhere? If so, and if you caught some pirates in them, what, aside from common decency, would prevent you from icing them then and there?


Like Darth Rotor said, 12 nautical miles; but if you're known to be icing people, better have some proof that they were indeed perps. Camera evidence, so on.

The cost of a security detail is how much, in comparison? Doubtless some clever MBA sort did a cost benefit risk analysis and found it to be cheaper just to pay, rather than increase payroll. :p This attitude strikes me as similar to how airline hijacking was dealt with for so long.


I'm all in favour of shoot-to-kill; but there are many practical problems.

Many flag nations (nations that "hire" their flag to merchant vessels, i.e. the countries where the merchant vessels are registered) do not allow small-arms on merchant ships registered with them.

Many ports do not allow entry by a merchant vessel that has small-arms on board.

These two details already mean a good many merchant vessels simply cannot carry armed security details, without even getting to the question of costs (not small).

Getting patrols by naval units is difficult; it's a huge stretch of sea area.


..... I think it's long overdue that the various navies in the area start boarding every fishing boat they see to search for evidence of piracy


It's a huge stretch of sea area.

My understanding is that a corridor has been made (http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/africa/11/10/piracy.corridor.ap/index.html) in which no ships have been succesfully attacked. The problem is that the pirates now attack up to 450 miles from Somalia shores, basically they hit before ships reach the corridor.


Now they're up to 500 sea miles from base, and they will probably extend that.

So why can't we monitor the movements of all ships and small boats in the area, then send intercept teams to investigate suspicious behavior?


Because it's a huge area.

You can bet that the ransom money being paid now is flowing uphill to the Islamic Courts. Putting them back in power won't help things. Might even make it worse.


Very doubtful. The Islamic Courts no longer have any great power in anywhere of Somalia, and the pirates are operating out of an area where the Islamic Courts never had any but theoretical power anyway.

Don't count on that, especially if the US is involved. The UN is so stupidly anti-American anymore that they wouldn't approve of the US shooting down enemy bombers headed towards our shores.


Travis, you need the CT forum, not this one. Have fun with the tin hat.

[tomwaits]

What we need is some ninjas.


Agreed. The age old debate about whether ninjas or pirates are "better" will finally be solved.

[Chaos]

This is apparently breaking news. http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20081118/ts_afp/somaliaunrestpiracy

May be slightly off, but a first report. Tried to find confirmation in BBC and did not yet.

If this story stands up, I'd like to tip my mein hut to the German Helicopter pilot in the Lynx, and the captain of his frigate who sent him to assist the Trafalgar.

Ya done good! :)

DR

This has been reported here, too.

[Darth Rotor]

This has been reported here, too.
Good news.

I admit a complete bias to enthusiastically applauding the exploits of naval helicopter pilots. I wonder if my old friend Rainer, a German Navy helicopter pilot, is having a pint in celebration of this.

I'll have one for him, just in case. :)

DR

[Travis]

Travis, you need the CT forum, not this one. Have fun with the tin hat.

Not necessary. As Geni pointed out my assertion was without merit. The UN probably would approve of such things but that might take too long.

[plumjam]

In any kind of conflict it's a good idea if you can disrupt your opponent's supply lines.
So why not ban the international trade in eye patches, hand hooks, parrots, tricorns, peg legs, blue beards, pieces of eight, blacked out teeth, cutlasses, and dodgy Cornish accents?
If the UN hasn't thought of this already you have to ask what do its tens of thousands of well-paid employees actually spend their time doing all *********** day, Jim lad (oops).

[Minadin]

So where exactly have the pirates been taking the ships they have seized? News reports indicated Haradhere, but Google Earth doesn't seem to know about that place.

Google Maps calls the place 'Harardera'.

[Kestrel]

Because it's a huge area.

You solve big problems by dividing them up into smaller problems, not by asserting that the problem is too big to solve.

Somalia has about 3,000 km of coastline. If we wanted to put a small patrol boat every 15 km, it would take 200 boats. Or a small number of aircraft could keep an eye on the entire coastline.

Since most of the pirate activity is coming from a few coastal towns, we can concentrate our efforts. Intercepting most of the traffic coming from those towns would not require a large force.

[geni]

Remove the pirates, weapons, speedboats and any loot or evidence linking the pirates to the crimes. Then leave and let the villagers go back to fishing for a living.

Removeing all the weapons from a somali town? Would take rather a long time and would probably be more merciful to kill them quicky.

You've got to find all this stuff anyway while hanging around in a country where war is a way of life.

[Gurdur]

You solve big problems by dividing them up into smaller problems, not by asserting that the problem is too big to solve.
.....
Since most of the pirate activity is coming from a few coastal towns, we can concentrate our efforts. Intercepting most of the traffic coming from those towns would not require a large force.


Good luck mounting what would be essentially a long, frustrating occupation on land.

I'll tell you what, you pay for it all, and I'm sure everyone will be happy to go along with it. Let us know the grand plan, and finance it.

[WildCat]

What do you do once you have captured it though?
Burn it down, blow it up, bulldoze it nice and flat.

[WildCat]

I still say we should tear a page out of the Dealing With Barbary Coast Pirates handbook and deal out some hurt.
Didn't we end up paying tribute to the Barbary pirates anyway once all was said and done?

[gumboot]

My understanding is that one of the mandates of the UN-approved force in the Gulf is preventing piracy, and that as a result of this task force piracy in the Gulf is pretty much non existence. Unsurprisingly, pirates have responded by starting the operate outside the UN mandated area where task force ships are unwilling to operate (feeling they don't have authority to do so).

The rather obvious and straight forward solution would be to extend the UN mandate, surely.

Having said all that, I think we shouldn't be too hasty about trying to get rid of these pirates. As pirate numbers rise we can expect global temperatures to decrease, and that's a good thing.

[WildCat]

Very doubtful. The Islamic Courts no longer have any great power in anywhere of Somalia, and the pirates are operating out of an area where the Islamic Courts never had any but theoretical power anyway.
Doesn't really matter. Whichever warlord controls the area will demand a piece of the action. They certainly won't stop it.

[Kestrel]

Removeing all the weapons from a somali town? Would take rather a long time and would probably be more merciful to kill them quicky.

You've got to find all this stuff anyway while hanging around in a country where war is a way of life.

Here is one of the pirate dens (http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&geocode=&q=eyl,+somalia&sll=39.755092,-104.988123&sspn=0.842503,1.172791&g=denver,+co&ie=UTF8&ll=7.964633,49.846365&spn=0.008479,0.009162&t=h&z=17). Do you really believe that this town would be too tough for our military forces to handle?

[geni]

Here is one of the pirate dens (http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&geocode=&q=eyl,+somalia&sll=39.755092,-104.988123&sspn=0.842503,1.172791&g=denver,+co&ie=UTF8&ll=7.964633,49.846365&spn=0.008479,0.009162&t=h&z=17). Do you really believe that this town would be too tough for our military forces to handle?

Most first world militry forces could overun the the entire country in a week if they wanted.

The problem is once you've occupied the town what next? Most of the houses will have weaponary burried in the back garden or closer to hand. People will continue to move in and out some of whom will be people want to kill members of the occupying force. In this enviroment you will lose troops for as long as they are stationed there. When do you decide that you've lost enough and leave?

[geni]

Burn it down, blow it up, bulldoze it nice and flat.

The laying waste to villages aproach is unpopular in areas where people might notice.

[WildCat]

The laying waste to villages aproach is unpopular in areas where people might notice.
We can also eliminate the people who will notice if you'd like. ;)

[Kestrel]

Most first world militry forces could overun the the entire country in a week if they wanted.

The problem is once you've occupied the town what next? Most of the houses will have weaponary burried in the back garden or closer to hand. People will continue to move in and out some of whom will be people want to kill members of the occupying force. In this enviroment you will lose troops for as long as they are stationed there. When do you decide that you've lost enough and leave?

I never proposed occupying this town for an extended period, so where did you get this idea?

Remove the pirates and the weapons and equipment they used to commit piracy. Repeat as needed until people get the message that pirates end up dead or in jail.

[WildCat]

I never proposed occupying this town for an extended period, so where did you get this idea?

Remove the pirates and the weapons and equipment they used to commit piracy. Repeat as needed until people get the message that pirates end up dead or in jail.
Exactly. There is no piracy problem a few mini-guns can't solve.

Especially the one in the A-10 Warthog, like the Taliban hiding in this hut found out. Very similar to pirate huts I think:

5Iz5MwPsfyo

[Toke]

looks cool, wish our brigde wing could take the recoil.

[AWPrime]

I am feeling a bit brutal today.

- attacking ports may carry political ramificationsJust sink any Somali ship in international waters. Also drop a bomb on that tanker.

Yes, shark bait were my first throught, unfortunately it is not legal.Why not?

A few hundred years ago there were similiar problems from marokko to tunis, best guess is that it was solved through stronger goverments that could control the countries and see the benefit in trade over piracy.Depends if the pirates are the government, also its Somali, what do they have to trade that offers more?

As for the Barbary pirates, they were lessened by punitive expeditions and then neutered by 19th century conquest of their homelands.

[luchog]

Here's a couple options I see for dealing with this and the negative sides of each:

I've noticed that no one has yet come up with the obvious solution. Warships of any normal kind are impractical. There's too much area to cover, they're too limited in visibility, and they're too slow to cope with the smaller, faster, more maneuverable pirates. Convoys increase the expense, and decrease the shipping speed.

An article I read earlier this week had a good solution. Helicopter ships. Armed helicopter gunships on a dedicated platform. Can cover more area in less time, greater visibility, and greater ability to deal with the small speedboat craft. Set up several platform ships in a chain, and you can cover an immense area compared to a similar number of traditional warships; and your response time is greatly improved.

It's not a cheap solution, or a perfect one; but it's workable and effective.

[Travis]

Didn't we end up paying tribute to the Barbary pirates anyway once all was said and done?

Only after the first Barbary War. After the second one the European powers decided to invade as well and make the territory their colony.

Having said all that, I think we shouldn't be too hasty about trying to get rid of these pirates. As pirate numbers rise we can expect global temperatures to decrease, and that's a good thing.

Very funny. :D

[dudalb]

A Indian Navy Frigate blew a pirate vessel out of the water. It's a start.

[geni]

I never proposed occupying this town for an extended period, so where did you get this idea?

The bit where you suggested removeing the weapons.


Remove the pirates and the weapons and equipment they used to commit piracy. Repeat as needed until people get the message that pirates end up dead or in jail.


Problem is when on shore we have no idea who the pirates are and the equipment is stuff you would expect to find in a standard somali fishing village.

[JoeyDonuts]

I've noticed that no one has yet come up with the obvious solution. Warships of any normal kind are impractical. There's too much area to cover, they're too limited in visibility, and they're too slow to cope with the smaller, faster, more maneuverable pirates. Convoys increase the expense, and decrease the shipping speed.

An article I read earlier this week had a good solution. Helicopter ships. Armed helicopter gunships on a dedicated platform. Can cover more area in less time, greater visibility, and greater ability to deal with the small speedboat craft. Set up several platform ships in a chain, and you can cover an immense area compared to a similar number of traditional warships; and your response time is greatly improved.

It's not a cheap solution, or a perfect one; but it's workable and effective.

Most modern warships above the size of a frigate have the capability to have a helicopter detail embarked. I agree that it would be the best option as far as direct interdiction of small craft, however, don't discount naval artillery. Our 5"/54cal gunner on the Barry was pretty damn good. There are also special purpose shells (KEET) designed with the expressed purpose of fragging small craft. An SSM won't be too effective on a small craft...they could probably blast a "mothership" with an SM-2 if they felt the need, but this would most likely be a naval artillery/helicopter/40mm grenade kill if I was calling the play.

[Doubt]

I believe the best, most efficient response to the pirates is to revive the Q ship concept.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q-ship

Draw them in and blow them out of the water. It won't end it. But it will put a dent in their operations.

[geni]

I believe the best, most efficient response to the pirates is to revive the Q ship concept.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q-ship

Draw them in and blow them out of the water. It won't end it. But it will put a dent in their operations.

We've already covered this. There are too many ships in the area for it to be effective.

[Darth Rotor]

I've noticed that no one has yet come up with the obvious solution. Warships of any normal kind are impractical. There's too much area to cover, they're too limited in visibility, and they're too slow to cope with the smaller, faster, more maneuverable pirates. Convoys increase the expense, and decrease the shipping speed.

An article I read earlier this week had a good solution. Helicopter ships. Armed helicopter gunships on a dedicated platform. Can cover more area in less time, greater visibility, and greater ability to deal with the small speedboat craft. Set up several platform ships in a chain, and you can cover an immense area compared to a similar number of traditional warships; and your response time is greatly improved.

It's not a cheap solution, or a perfect one; but it's workable and effective.

Luchog, most modern combatants have on board helicopters, so your suggestion, while not bad, is redundant in the sense that ship borne helicopters are already there. US has armed it's ship borne helos since the mid 1990s, most NATO nations before that. Ships with organic helos have a surveillance range many times that of a ship with no helo, which is why we've had helos on surface combatants -- frigates, destroyers, cruisers -- since the mid 1970's.

Another thing we (the US) now have on a variety of ships is UAV's, which can help a lot with the maritime surveillance package.

Also, in that part of the world, more than one NATO nation deploys (or has deployed) multi enging maritime patrol planes, with long on station times, like the Argus, Nimrod, Orion, or even Atlantique. (Not sure if Atlantique's are still deployed there. )

Sum up: what you are looking for is already there, or easily put there.

(Ya sorta threw that pitch into my wheelhouse. :) )

@ toke: a 25mm chain gun ought to suffice for your ship. Mount one on each bridge wing. We had them welded to our ships' main decks after the lessons learned in Praying Mantis/Earnest Will in the late 1980's, in terms of getting a mid sized gun for a small sized boghammer or such like craft.

@ Joey Donuts: were you on Barry when CDR Balconis was the CO?

DR

[JoeyDonuts]

It makes me wonder how they're picking their targets. With the massive volume of shipping traversing that waterspace, does it strike anyone else a little odd that they just so happen to nab a shipment of Russian armored vehicles? And the largest volume of oil ever captured? I think they've gotten too many "hits" on high value targets for it to be just chance.

These guys are getting intel from somewhere. My best guess would be someone inside the shipping business who would have some idea of what's on the manifests of the different tankers and cargo rigs.

@ DarthRotor: Negative. I was ship's company from 2003-2008. My CO's were CDR Coulton, CDR Denman, CDR Wolstenholme, and CDR Seaman. And you named the only mounted gun they wouldn't let me shoot. Damned GM's and FC's hoggin all the action on the 25mm. They did let me fire a burst from the 40mm, so I can't complain. :D

[geni]

It makes me wonder how they're picking their targets. With the massive volume of shipping traversing that waterspace, does it strike anyone else a little odd that they just so happen to nab a shipment of Russian armored vehicles?

That one is likely to be a mistake since there are a large number of people around prepared to put significant effort into makeing sure they do not benifit from that.


And the largest volume of oil ever captured?


Massive radar target.


I think they've gotten too many "hits" on high value targets for it to be just chance.

These guys are getting intel from somewhere. My best guess would be someone inside the shipping business who would have some idea of what's on the manifests of the different tankers and cargo rigs.


Pretty much. Been accepted for a while that in some cases the crew may be in on it.

[Kestrel]

The bit where you suggested removeing the weapons.

Problem is when on shore we have no idea who the pirates are and the equipment is stuff you would expect to find in a standard somali fishing village.

Your comments make it clear that you didn't bother looking at the Google Maps link I provided.

[geni]

Your comments make it clear that you didn't bother looking at the Google Maps link I provided.

Yes I looked at it but what of it? You've searched the place found zero pirates and some weapons (which means nothing weapons are a given in that area). Now what do you do? Give up and go away?

[Kestrel]

Yes I looked at it but what of it? You've searched the place found zero pirates and some weapons (which means nothing weapons are a given in that area). Now what do you do? Give up and go away?

They are rather simple minded pirates, not magicians. They can't magically make themselves and their speedboats disappear.

[geni]

They are rather simple minded pirates, not magicians. They can't magically make themselves and their speedboats disappear.

They don't have to. You walk into this town and you have no way of telling the pirates from any of the other adult males. And speedboat is ah a bit on the generious side.

[egslim]

- Criminalise the act of paying ransom to pirates - they're rewarding a felony.

- Retake by force any captured ship.

- Destroy any ship in Somali harbours that is big enough to function as a mothership.

- Enforce a naval exclusion zone around Somalia where any ship found will be sunk or captured without warning. Including fishingboats.

The idea is to make life for pirates as hard, dangerous and unrewarding as possible.

[AWPrime]

They don't have to. You walk into this town and you have no way of telling the pirates from any of the other adult males. And speedboat is ah a bit on the generious side.

But that only works of you care.

[Bikewer]

I had wondered some time ago why the shipping companies were not taking more security precautions. Evidently, the method of attack is primitive in the extreme; the pirates toss grappling hooks up from their little skiffs, scale the hull, and take over. They expect no resistance.

Now, naval activity to suppress these operations is admittedly difficult and rather expensive. Keeping warships, aircraft, and marines on post costs money. Finding and destroying the pirates in their homes faces the same difficulties as any "asymmetrical" form of warfare.

I wondered why the shipping companies were not hiring private security? Well, it seems they are. Our old friends from Blackwater are outfitting boats and training men for just such duties.
Any such security forces will likely be cheaper than the ransom demands of the pirates, if the "bottom line" is the main consideration.

[geni]

- Criminalise the act of paying ransom to pirates - they're rewarding a felony.

The ships are registered in places like liberia. Arangeing for ransoms to be paid outside the juristiction of anyone who banned it would not present a significant problem.


- Retake by force any captured ship.


Would result in an unacceptable level of hostage deaths.


- Destroy any ship in Somali harbours that is big enough to function as a mothership.

So they buy new ones and launch them from say kenya.


- Enforce a naval exclusion zone around Somalia where any ship found will be sunk or captured without warning. Including fishingboats.


The likes of Taiwan and Korea might complain.


The idea is to make life for pirates as hard, dangerous and unrewarding as possible.

Yes but idealy without doing the same to us.

[AWPrime]

Would result in an unacceptable level of hostage deaths.Unacceptable is such a relative term.


The likes of Taiwan and Korea might complain.Really why would they?

[Kestrel]

They don't have to. You walk into this town and you have no way of telling the pirates from any of the other adult males. And speedboat is ah a bit on the generious side.

With the level of pirate activity in this place, every resident is either a pirate or a material witness to piracy. Round everyone up, and take them somewhere else to interview separately.

Since we have captured pirates, we probably know the identities of some of the pirate leaders. If not, we piece it together from what the townsfolk tell us.

Taking the town reverses the situation with the captured vessels. The pirates onboard no longer have a support team onshore.

I also should point out that these pirates are in it for the money, not dying for the greater glory of Allah.

[Kestrel]

Now, naval activity to suppress these operations is admittedly difficult and rather expensive. Keeping warships, aircraft, and marines on post costs money. Finding and destroying the pirates in their homes faces the same difficulties as any "asymmetrical" form of warfare.

Nations first started building warships as a way of protecting commerce. If our naval forces are no longer up to this task, why are we spending billions to keep them afloat?

Taking out small speedboats like the pirates are using doesn't require a lot of firepower. What it does require is the ability to keep an eye on a large area, follow a large number of potential threats and respond quickly when needed.

[rwguinn]

Nations first started building warships as a way of protecting commerce. If our naval forces are no longer up to this task, why are we spending billions to keep them afloat?

Taking out small speedboats like the pirates are using doesn't require a lot of firepower. What it does require is the ability to keep an eye on a large area, follow a large number of potential threats and respond quickly when needed.
What it requires is a rapid rate of fire, a steady hand, and a good eye for wingshooting...
and a gun.

[dudalb]

What it requires is a rapid rate of fire, a steady hand, and a good eye for wingshooting...
and a gun.

And an ablity to do quick informal calculations on where a target will be in a few seconds. The key to hitting any fast moving target is knowing how to aim not at where he is, but where he will be. Any duck hunter or trap shooter will tell you that.
Which is why Trap Shooting is a basic tool that the US armed services use in training gunners or pilots who will be firing at moving targets.

[Darth Rotor]

With the level of pirate activity in this place, every resident is either a pirate or a material witness to piracy. Round everyone up, and take them somewhere else to interview separately.
I hear Gitmo may be available soon, which allows the captured pirates to become, drumroll, (captured) Pirates of the Caribbean. (Yes, I have a twisted sense of humor.)
I also should point out that these pirates are in it for the money, not dying for the greater glory of Allah.
Yep.

DR

[rwguinn]

And an ablity to do quick informal calculations on where a target will be in a few seconds. The key to hitting any fast moving target is knowing how to aim not at where he is, but where he will be. Any duck hunter or trap shooter will tell you that.
Which is why Trap Shooting is a basic tool that the US armed services use in training gunners or pilots who will be firing at moving targets.
Maybe you missed the "good eye for wingshooting" bit?:D

[geni]

With the level of pirate activity in this place, every resident is either a pirate or a material witness to piracy. Round everyone up, and take them somewhere else to interview separately.

Where? Gets even more fun with the larger ports. Oh and remeber while they are away from the town it will be looted. What are you going to do then with the non pirates?


I also should point out that these pirates are in it for the money, not dying for the greater glory of Allah.

Other people in the coutry are and there is the whole tribal loyaties thing.

[geni]

Nations first started building warships as a way of protecting commerce. If our naval forces are no longer up to this task, why are we spending billions to keep them afloat?

Power projection. The ability to launch attacks anywhere with a coastline.

The soviets were more interested in sea denial so mostly built submarines.

Of course things can be multirole. Back during the Indonesia–Malaysia confrontation the Royal Navy put deck guns back on their submarines in order to deal with small junks and the like

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:HMS_andrew_4_inch_deck_gun.jpg

Rather harder to do with a modern submarine.

[Darth Rotor]

Nations first started building warships as a way of protecting commerce. If our naval forces are no longer up to this task, why are we spending billions to keep them afloat?
But they are. I don't understand why you think they aren't. You confuese a lack of assigned resources to a lack of ability for the mission. Also, the RoE at present is far more restrictive than it was three hundred years ago. Ship captains are horrifically micromanaged. See also the political issues of laying waste to the shore sanctuary. A pirate with a privileged sanctuary, that a navy won't attack, is a pirate who can keep plying his trade.

Taking out small speedboats like the pirates are using doesn't require a lot of firepower. What it does require is the ability to keep an eye on a large area, follow a large number of potential threats and respond quickly when needed.
No, it takes finding and identifying them as the thing to shoot at. It's the indetifying, to the satisfaction of the RoE, that time and again lets the pirate slip away. :(

DR

[Kestrel]

Other people in the coutry are and there is the whole tribal loyaties thing.

I have sympathy for the common folk in Somalia, but they are ultimately responsible for what their tribal leaders do. If your community allows pirates or terrorists to operate freely, you should also expect retaliation from those the pirates or terrorists are attacking.

[Travis]

What would it take to get a much more permissive ROE put in place? A UN mandate?

I mean stopping this is not impossible. Iran was stopped from waging attacks on shipping in the Persian Gulf which is itself a huge body of water that Iran has a lot of shoreline on.

[geni]

What would it take to get a much more permissive ROE put in place? A UN mandate?

I mean stopping this is not impossible. Iran was stopped from waging attacks on shipping in the Persian Gulf which is itself a huge body of water that Iran has a lot of shoreline on.

Polticaly you can't get a mandate for anything beyond Somalia without China objecting. Getting a UN mandate to go into Somalia is probably posible but no one wants to risk getting dragged into a wider conflict in the area.

[Kestrel]

But they are. I don't understand why you think they aren't. You confuese a lack of assigned resources to a lack of ability for the mission. Also, the RoE at present is far more restrictive than it was three hundred years ago. Ship captains are horrifically micromanaged. See also the political issues of laying waste to the shore sanctuary. A pirate with a privileged sanctuary, that a navy won't attack, is a pirate who can keep plying his trade.

Eight hijackings in one area during one week is clear evidence that our naval forces are not up to the task. I doubt the problem is with men, ships or weapons systems. But a failure in leadership is still a failure. The problem seems to be that everyone was trained to operate carrier task forces and nobody was planning how to deal with third world pirates in speedboats armed with hand weapons.

As for ship captains being micromanaged, shouldn't the blame be put on the admirals? The same holds with the rules of engagement.

No, it takes finding and identifying them as the thing to shoot at. It's the indetifying, to the satisfaction of the RoE, that time and again lets the pirate slip away.

If you could provide a link to these unworkable rules of engagement, we could discuss the issue properly.

[WildCat]

CDR Seaman
That is so cool! :D

[geni]

Eight hijackings in one area during one week is clear evidence that our naval forces are not up to the task. I doubt the problem is with men, ships or weapons systems. But a failure in leadership is still a failure. The problem seems to be that everyone was trained to operate carrier task forces and nobody was planning how to deal with third world pirates in speedboats armed with hand weapons.

I wouldn't bet against Paul K. Van Riper haveing done so but he has slightly retired.

The closest recent stuff would probably be columbian drug smuggeling intercepts.

[Doubt]

We've already covered this. There are too many ships in the area for it to be effective.

Went back and looked over where it came up.

I think people are selling the idea a bit short. Piracy attacks tend to happen in groups. See the map here:

http://www.icc-ccs.org/index.php?option=com_fabrik&view=visualization&controller=visualization.googlemap&Itemid=89

A Q-ship need not just travel around randomly. Pirates operating from a mother ship are probably communicating with somebody. I doubt those communications are secure. If the general area of operation can be found at a given time, a ship can be routed to that location.

The ships need not be expensive compared to modern warships. Also if the information reaches the pirates that there are unmarked ships out there looking for them they may be a bit more reluctant to go after some types of targets since they may be heading into a trap. For now they don't have to worry about that possibility.

But aside from that idea. Where is the effort to develop communication intel on the pirates?

[JoeyDonuts]

That is so cool! :D

You're telling me. We all had kind of a double-take when we saw his orders come in. CDR Seaman? You've gotta be kiddin' me. I'm sure he was the subject of no small amount of jibes on his way up the ranks. Fantastic skipper though...one of the better ones I had.

[JoeyDonuts]

But aside from that idea. Where is the effort to develop communication intel on the pirates?

They'd have to be using gear for us to do COMINT on first. If they're using cell phones close to the coast, eventually we'll get them. I won't say how in case any of them are JREF'ers. :D If they're only using short range handhelds and standard marine VHF that might get a little tricky.

[egslim]

The ships are registered in places like liberia. Arangeing for ransoms to be paid outside the juristiction of anyone who banned it would not present a significant problem.
Globalise the jurisdiction - been done before. The people paying money aren't hiding in caves, they have worldwide personal and financial ties.

Would result in an unacceptable level of hostage deaths.
Depends on what you consider unacceptable.

So they buy new ones and launch them from say kenya.
True, which is why you simultaneously have to make the business unprofitable in other ways.

The likes of Taiwan and Korea might complain.
They have neither a veto in the UNSC, nor a big navy at the Somali coast. So they would pose little problem.

[egslim]

I doubt the problem is with men, ships or weapons systems.
I think the ships used are over-developed for this kind of task. Much of the weapons and other equipment they have on board is both expensive and utterly useless to combat piracy. Missiles, sonar, torpedos and much of the electronic equipment are worthless against speedboats.

All you need is a nice 4" gun to deal with bigger ships, 2 chainguns against speedboats, some basic communications equipment and a surface radar. Add a small helicopter, or an even smaller armed UAV - no need for it to carry a load of sonar equipment.

[gumboot]

I think the current force is probably quite capable of dealing with the pirate threat. The issue is not one of resources but one of mandate. I read something about the seizing of that oil tanker and some military captain said they were aware of the attack at the time but couldn't do anything about it because it was outside the area they were allowed to operate in accordance with the UN mandate.

The simple fact is most of these pirates are not hard core buccaneers, they're opportunists. In the old days trade by sea was relatively dangerous, and ships travelled in convoys, armed, escorted by warships, for protection. The entire point of a navy was to protect your trade routes.

However in recent times trade routes have become completely safe, so cargo shops ply the waters completely defenseless, and our navies, lacking anything to protect, go and do other things.

Even just some very basic security measures would result in a substantial drop in the numbers of pirates, as the opportunists decided to go elsewhere. Only the few hardcore pirates would be left.

Some rather basic measures that could be implemented:

1. Private security on/around merchant ships - either security crews on board or escorts by private security gunboats
2. Movement of merchant ships in convoys rather than individually
3. Expansion of current UN mandate to include the Gulf of Aden and east coast of Africa.
4. More aggressive approach to pirates - engage on sight

I think all of the above is easily achievable, and would reduce piracy to virtually nothing.

Some rather simple intelligence gathering would probably be smart as well, to see if there's any insider involvement in target selection, and to establish exactly how these pirates operate so they can be more effectively countered.

At most, this would involve increased cost of shipping to cover security (already happening due to increased risk and to cover ransoms), and a slight increase in each participating nation's commitment to the task force in the Gulf. It's not like anyone's navy is urgently needed to protect anywhere else, so adding some more smaller ships to the fleet shouldn't be too taxing. New Zealand is about to add a whole bunch of Coastal and Offshore Patrol Vessels to our Navy, they would be perfect for this sort of job, and that would boost our commitment, in terms of vessels, by several times.

[JoeyDonuts]

Totally agree, kiwi.

I've seen firsthand the capability of a multinational force. They're more than sufficient to deal with this. It's gonna be an ROE problem unless they clearly specify what can and can't be engaged...a "fishing boat" can become a "pirate vessel" in the amount of time it would take one to retrieve their weapons from underneath the fishing gear. I think that declaring a sort of "maritime exclusion zone" where it's open season on anyone that doesn't acknowledge hails or turn away as directed would be the best option in the short term. This is going to upset the fishermen a bit, but perhaps there's a way around it. The other thing would be really finding out if anyone's feeding them intel. I find it highly likely given how many HVU's they've managed to snag out of a very densely traversed area.

Another good question is...what the heck are they doing with the ransom money? This whole thing is starting to sound an awful lot like the first 20 minutes of a James Bond movie.

[Darth Rotor]

Eight hijackings in one area during one week is clear evidence that our naval forces are not up to the task.
No. The current state is that initiative has been ceded to the pirates. Until that changes, and it might, the forces are significantly constrained to a reactive mode. To further the piratical advantage, they have the simple camoflage of blending in with mundane merchant traffic until they find a time to strike. Gumboot's comments on mandate are sound.
I doubt the problem is with men, ships or weapons systems. But a failure in leadership is still a failure. The problem seems to be that everyone was trained to operate carrier task forces and nobody was planning how to deal with third world pirates in speedboats armed with hand weapons.
Ignorance is ugly. MISO has been a METL task since 1991, and for that matter, all of the NATO navies did a lot of it in the Med during the Bosnia Ops. Likewise the Brit, Canadian and American Navies during the embargo of Saddam. You mistake a problem of competence with a lack of political will to prioritize a mission. The other core problem is being proactive. At present, the chosen political position is generally reactive, though that may soon change. See the entire thread, and focus on the posts that discuss why the pirate's various bases are not taken out.
As for ship captains being micromanaged, shouldn't the blame be put on the admirals?
No, Kestrel, go a few rungs up the chain to people wearing suits and ties.
If you could provide a link to these unworkable rules of engagement, we could discuss the issue properly.
Toke and others have discussed already the problems of rules that don't permit looser fires, or off the cuff engagements. There is also the issue of blowing up private property, the hijacked vessels. There is also the matter of not killing the crew. This the pirates are aware of, and they act to take advantage of those self imposed limitations. The pirates are not some collection of dolls in an arcade to be knocked over by shooting at them. They are smart, motivated, and daring crooks. Any RoE has to take in the above considerations. At present, you can assess the RoE as conservative in the extreme, given the events of the past year, and the chosen political posture of reactive.

Look at the outcomes.

You will also note that a Blue Hulled task force is not in place, yet, as there was in the Adriatic to deal with arms smuggling in Former Yugoslavia.
From here: http://www.hindustantimes.com/StoryPage/StoryPage.aspx?sectionName=&id=1600298b-2251-4591-b038-f79f354b7d23&MatchID1=4857&TeamID1=1&TeamID2=5&MatchType1=1&SeriesID1=1224&PrimaryID=4857&Headline=India+wants+UN+force+off+Somalia+coast
Just days after foiling two attempted hijacks by heavily armed sea pirates off the coast of Somalia, India has called for a United Nations peacekeeping force to patrol the increasingly dangerous Gulf of Aden in the Arabian Sea.

The Indian call — made on Thursday at the twice-yearly Council meeting of the International Maritime Organisation in London — is aimed at bringing current disjointed security patrols of individual countries under a unified command.

Senior shipping sources said the move follows a recent refusal by a Western naval patrol to protect an Indian merchant ship that felt “vulnerable” to attacks on what is perhaps the world’s most dangerous stretch of water.

“When the Indian captain asked for protection, he was asked, firstly, about which flag he was flying, then about the nationality of his crew, and finally about which cargo he was carrying,” said Shipping Corporation of India Chairman S. Hajara.
If you don't have a coalition uperating a maritime patrol under a consistent RoE and Concept of Operations, you have the problem of an incoherent patrol which leaves operational cracks through which the pirates can slip. If you look at how the EU and NATO assigned assets in and around the Adriatic, which included a lot of air patrols by maritime patrol aircraft, and electronic intercept, and then consider the expanse of ocean and how many ships one might assign, you will find a less than robust asset base for the patrols at present.

I am not convinced this mission has been resourced for success, but I'm open to differing opinions. That effort is at present not unified hardly helps, see the Indian call for action above.

I thus return you to the core political problem of not prioritizing this mission. Your time reference is a bit off anyway. This growing piracy off of Somalia has been a problem for more than a few weeks. I've been keeping an eye on it since 2004, in the press, and for a while before that operationally. (Gosh, has it been that long?) I'd suggest you look at an earlier observation I've made on a possible cost benefit analysis done by the shipping companies: they have an interest in this, and are certainly going to engage politically to reduce the risks of loss of an asset, and its cargo.

I am tickled pink that the Indian Navy scored an old school smack down. It's a hopeful sign. :)

DR

[Darth Rotor]

I think the ships used are over-developed for this kind of task. Much of the weapons and other equipment they have on board is both expensive and utterly useless to combat piracy.
That is irrelevant. Piracy patrol is one of many missions a given combatant will be tasked with.
Missiles, sonar, torpedos and much of the electronic equipment are worthless against speedboats.
Red herring, egslim. Seedboats aren't the mission, pirates are, and speedboats are a single tool. If you don't have proper identifying info, a speedboat isn't a target, it's simply a speedboat. This is an error in assessment added to your irrelevant point about sonar.

The speedboat/small boat problem is a lesser included case of the entire mission profile of a multipurpose surface combatant. Having a sonar does not infringe on the anti piracy mission. All those electronics includes comms for command and control, radars, and the all important intel and imagery feeds. Those are necessary for dealing with the piracy problem.
All you need is a nice 4" gun to deal with bigger ships, 2 chainguns against speedboats, some basic communications equipment and a surface radar. Add a small helicopter, or an even smaller armed UAV - no need for it to carry a load of sonar equipment.
All of that, and more, are available on the standard combatant, frigate and larger. You are wrong to assert the need to purpose build an anti piracy vessel. Sonar does not get in the way of the mission, but is required for other missions. Likewise some of the esoteric comms gear. It's part of the multi purpose nature of a combatant. Housing and operating for sustained periods a suitable helicopter requires that you have a least a frigate for the mission. The chain guns and all that are easily fitted to any multi purpose combatant's basic hull.

I'd like to see more UAV's on a typical combatant. They'd be a fine addition to the general capability, and a great surveillance mission asset for this sort of patrol in particular.

DR

[geni]

Another good question is...what the heck are they doing with the ransom money? This whole thing is starting to sound an awful lot like the first 20 minutes of a James Bond movie.

Buying better kit paying off locals and liveing whatever the somali high life is.

[Kestrel]

Toke and others have discussed already the problems of rules that don't permit looser fires, or off the cuff engagements. There is also the issue of blowing up private property, the hijacked vessels. There is also the matter of not killing the crew. This the pirates are aware of, and they act to take advantage of those self imposed limitations. The pirates are not some collection of dolls in an arcade to be knocked over by shooting at them. They are smart, motivated, and daring crooks. Any RoE has to take in the above considerations. At present, you can assess the RoE as conservative in the extreme, given the events of the past year, and the chosen political posture of reactive.

Rules of engagement that permit stopping and inspecting suspect vessels and firing on those that fire back or flee is what is really needed. Any vessel leaving the "pirate den" ports should be stopped and searched at a minimum.

BTW - Typical small fishing vessels with a displacement hull are too slow for this kind of piracy. They can't catch up with the merchant ships.

Have the navel forces in the area asked for such rules, or are they just hoping the pirates will go away so they don't have to deal with them? The later tactic seems to be how the world's politicians are dealing with the problem.

The other problem is resources. We have a few large ships dealing with a problem that really needs a lot of small boats and aircraft. You don't need a frigate to take out a half dozen men in a speedboat.

[richardm]

The UN has given India authority to go after pirates (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/7741287.stm) in Somalia's territorial waters. Be interesting to see how this works out.

[Kestrel]

Buying better kit paying off locals and liveing whatever the somali high life is.

Have you seen the BBC report on Eyl (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7623329.stm)?

[Kestrel]

Seedboats aren't the mission, pirates are, and speedboats are a single tool. If you don't have proper identifying info, a speedboat isn't a target, it's simply a speedboat.

Actually, they are rather easy to spot (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7741706.stm) because of where they are and what they are doing.

With the technology in the bridge, the pirates are surprisingly easy to spot - it is not normal to see a small skiff travelling at 20 knots, hundreds of miles out to sea.
They appear as small dots on the radar, usually in groups of three. The mother ships - which they use to refuel - masquerade as fishing dhows but often there is no radio contact with the crew on board.

[Alareth]

Didn't we end up paying tribute to the Barbary pirates anyway once all was said and done?


Yes. At one point the roughly 20% of the US government's annual income was going to the Barbary Pirates as tribute.

It began in 1784 following the first seizure of an American ship by Morocco. A treaty was signed and we paid $60,000 for safe passage.

Despite the monies being paid, piracy continued and in 1786 Jefferson reported to congress that when asked why, the ambassador to Britain from Tripoli told him:

It was written in their Koran, that all nations which had not acknowledged the Prophet were sinners, whom it was the right and duty of the faithful to plunder and enslave; and that every mussulman who was slain in this warfare was sure to go to paradise. He said, also, that the man who was the first to board a vessel had one slave over and above his share, and that when they sprang to the deck of an enemy's ship, every sailor held a dagger in each hand and a third in his mouth; which usually struck such terror into the foe that they cried out for quarter at once.

The Naval Act of 1794 which created the US Navy was passed on the grounds of protecting US merchantmen from the Barbary Pirates.

It wasn't until the second Barbary War in 1815 that the US put an end to the payment of tribute.

If we take the history into account, it's time for the US Navy to do what is was created for and lay the smack down on some pirates.

[egslim]

All of that, and more, are available on the standard combatant, frigate and larger. You are wrong to assert the need to purpose build an anti piracy vessel. Sonar does not get in the way of the mission, but is required for other missions. Likewise some of the esoteric comms gear. It's part of the multi purpose nature of a combatant.
Nowhere did I assert the need to immediately build an anti-piracy vessel.

Multi purpose naval units currently available are as up to the job as any dedicated anti piracy design. But they are also far more expensive, and in the long term cost is an issue. If this piracy isn't checked at the source a continuous naval presence will be necessary, and that makes cheap specialised anti piracy vessels the most cost effective solution.

[geni]

It wasn't until the second Barbary War in 1815 that the US put an end to the payment of tribute.

But not the piracy. That went on until france occupied the place. Dispite some fairly significant european raids.

[Toke]

I have sailed through the bay of aden on large container vessels doing 23-25 knots, we were not worried.

Christian X (our last monarch) wrote a naval roe stating rougly translated "It is the duty of the vessel commander to open fire when he find it neccecery to complete his mission"
Heard it was the envy of all of nato.

It is obviusly not in place for Absalon off somalia.

Absalon is brand new and have two 30mm and one 127mm cannon plus an armed helicopter and some missiles. It cannot be a practical problem to defeat a fishing/pirate kanoo.
Nor can it be a problem to launch a punitive bombardment of the kanoo port of a pirate hangout.
It had litle suches on the barbary pirates, but they had a easier time finding new vessels.

We installed a new 3cm radar before I went on leave, can naval vessels track those 100 miles off? And track down a mothership? (if not I will be disapointed)

If you give a free hand to the naval officers I an sure they can come up with good ideas, some will have read up on naval history and know what have been tried before in what situations.

(Was´nt the USMC created for a punitive expedition on the barbary coast?)

[Toke]

I only have experince with us coastguarders at port state inspections, and have read of sea marshalls. Kids with guns.

The us navy must be better than that.
And can be trusted to shoot up a pirate kanoo.

[egslim]

We installed a new 3cm radar before I went on leave, can naval vessels track those 100 miles off? And track down a mothership? (if not I will be disapointed)
I'm sorry, 100 miles off is behind the horizon.

If you give a free hand to the naval officers I an sure they can come up with good ideas, some will have read up on naval history and know what have been tried before in what situations.
Naval history is depressing in that regard. While piracy can be supressed in many ways, the only way to really end it is to colonize the place. Which is how France eventually finished the Barbary pirates.

[Toke]

I'm sorry, 100 miles off is behind the horizon.

Yes, but they do "bend" a bit

[dudalb]

(Was´nt the USMC created for a punitive expedition on the barbary coast?)
No, it was created in 1776 to do the same job the British Royal Marines were doing: Provide landing parties for the Navy, and sharpshooters for boarding actions.
The actions against the Barbary Pirates were right up their alley.
"To The Shores of Tripoli" as the Marines' Hymn has it.

[gumboot]

Does anyone know how effective the E-8 Joint STARS or RC-135 RIVET JOINT are over water? The Joint STARS can cover 50,000km at once and track up to 600 targets so methinks it could be a handy C2 platform for coordinating a serious effort against pirates. As pointed out, the motherships would be hard to detect but the actual attack ships would be relatively easy to pick up and could be tracked back to the motherships.

I'm thinking no long-term effort is required - a brief full-scale move against these pirates might be enough to discourage them.

[geni]

I'm thinking no long-term effort is required - a brief full-scale move against these pirates might be enough to discourage them.

Not really. You've got a bunch of previously rather poor people with no effective goverment right next to a major shipping lane. As long as that remains the case short term reductions in activity cannot be expected to hold.

[Alareth]

No, it was created in 1776 to do the same job the British Royal Marines were doing: Provide landing parties for the Navy, and sharpshooters for boarding actions.
The actions against the Barbary Pirates were right up their alley.
"To The Shores of Tripoli" as the Marines' Hymn has it.

The Marines were sharpshooters that took position in the yardarms during naval engagements, it wasn't until the Barbary Wars that they were first used as a landing force.

[Travis]

The Marines were sharpshooters that took position in the yardarms during naval engagements, it wasn't until the Barbary Wars that they were first used as a landing force.

I thought they captured the Bahamas before that?

[Alareth]

I thought they captured the Bahamas before that?

I had a roommate that was an ex-Marine and he would take any opportunity to proudly retell the history of the Corps at length.

He never mentioned the Bahamas, but there is always the possibility he might be missing a fact or two.

His favorite anecdote was how the Marines earned the nickname Devil Dogs.

[gumboot]

The Marines were sharpshooters that took position in the yardarms during naval engagements, it wasn't until the Barbary Wars that they were first used as a landing force.


Both the pre-USMC marine units and the early USMC appear to have been heavily involved in amphibious attacks from the outset.

Some early examples:

Nobel Jones' Company of Marine Boatmen:
Gully Hole Creek, July 7, 1742
Bloody Marsh, July 7, 1742

Continental Marines:
Raised to raid Halifax (Nov, 1775)
Battle of Nassau, March 2 - 3, 1776, first US Amphibious Assault
Dec - Jan 1776-77 Fought on land in Washington's army as Philadelphia Militia
Penobscot Expedition - multiple landings and assaults

United States Marine Corps:
Quasi-War - conducted multiple raids including multiple landings at Haiti
First Barbary War - Tripoli and Derna

And so forth...

It appears land-based warfare and amphibious assaults have always been a fundamental part of US Marine warfare.

[JoeyDonuts]

I'm sorry, 100 miles off is behind the horizon.

Surface search radars can propagate well beyond line of sight or visible horizon with enough dBm to get a solid ESM hit. Two or more units with coordinating ESM gear, and you get a pretty solid ESM datum with an area of uncertainty of around +/-3nm.

The atmospherics do play a role in the attenuation of radar signals, but in that part of the world it's a pretty good environment. It gets well enough hot and humid in some parts there that you can get a phenomenon called RF ducting, which can extend the counterdetection range of RF to hundreds of miles.

I have yet to see a commercial-grade surface search radar that had an effective range that terminates at the horizon. Wouldn't be much good if it did.

[Toke]

Our radar have a max display setting of 24 nm, I expect it to be detectable at longer range.
Biggest problem would be pirates with an AIS system. It is a new safety/anti terrorist measure that let you locate and identify any other ship with one. Must be very usefull for a pirate.

[Alareth]

I actually miss working with surface radar. I started out with an AN/SPS-64 aboard my first command then moved on to the wonderful SPY-1B when I worked my way up to the CIC on an Aegis cruiser.

[Darth Rotor]

If you give a free hand to the naval officers I an sure they can come up with good ideas, some will have read up on naval history and know what have been tried before in what situations.
While I appreciate the sentiment, a free hand isn't given for political reasons. That's reality.
(Was´nt the USMC created for a punitive expedition on the barbary coast?)
No. It was created about thirty years before that. (1775)
At its founding, the Marine Corps served as infantry aboard naval vessels and was responsible for the security of the ship and her crew by conducting offensive and defensive combat during boarding actions, and defending the ship's officers from mutiny; to the latter end, their quarters on ship were often strategically positioned between the officers' quarters and the rest of the vessel. Continental Marines also manned raiding parties, both at sea and ashore. America's first amphibious assault landing occurred early in the Revolutionary War as the Marines gained control of a British ammunition depot and naval port in New Providence, Bahamas.
The United States Marine Corps traces its institutional roots to the Continental Marines of the American Revolutionary War, formed at Tun Tavern in Philadelphia, by a resolution of the Second Continental Congress on November 10, 1775, to raise 2 battalions of Marines. That date is regarded and celebrated as the date of the Marine Corps' "birthday". At the end of the American Revolution, both the Continental Navy and Continental Marines were disbanded in April of 1783. Although individual Marines stayed on for the few American naval vessels left, the last Continental Marine was discharged in September 1783. The institution itself would not be resurrected until 1798. In that year, in preparation for the Naval War with France, Congress created the United States Navy and Marine Corps.
There ya go. :)

DR

[Darth Rotor]

Does anyone know how effective the E-8 Joint STARS or RC-135 RIVET JOINT are over water? The Joint STARS can cover 50,000km at once and track up to 600 targets so methinks it could be a handy C2 platform for coordinating a serious effort against pirates. As pointed out, the motherships would be hard to detect but the actual attack ships would be relatively easy to pick up and could be tracked back to the motherships.

US Navy and Royal Navy have had ISAR capability for over twenty years. JSTARS is SAR, Rivet Joint is a comms intercept, not a rader plane.

ISAR is sufficient for this purpose.

ISAR = Inverse Synthetic Aperture Rader
SAR = Synthetic Aperture Rader

I am a few years out of date, but I think SAR has trouble with clutter/water droplets and vapor over water, which ISAR is not as susceptible to. Memory a bit fuzzy on that.

E-2C has surface search mode. Handy. Most naval helicopters have standard radar, beyond that I won't comment.

There are also a suite of other sensors on P-3 series of patrol planes. Clever stuff. Also no comment.

DR

[gumboot]

US Navy and Royal Navy have had ISAR capability for over twenty years. JSTARS is SAR, Rivet Joint is a comms intercept, not a rader plane.

ISAR is sufficient for this purpose.

ISAR = Inverse Synthetic Aperture Rader
SAR = Synthetic Aperture Rader

I am a few years out of date, but I think SAR has trouble with clutter/water droplets and vapor over water, which ISAR is not as susceptible to. Memory a bit fuzzy on that.

E-2C has surface search mode. Handy. Most naval helicopters have standard radar, beyond that I won't comment.

There are also a suite of other sensors on P-3 series of patrol planes. Clever stuff. Also no comment.

DR


Ack, you're quite right, I was thinking of other RC-135 varients. Too bad Rivet Amber crashed, from wiki:

The radar system alone weighed over 35,000 pounds and cost over USD$35 million (1960 dollars), making Rivet Amber both the heaviest C-135-derivative aircraft flying and the most expensive Air Force aircraft for its time. The radiation generated by the radar was sufficient to be a health hazard to the crew, and both ends of the radar compartment were shielded by thick lead bulkheads. This prevented the forward and aft crew areas from having direct contact after boarding the aircraft. The system could track an object the size of a soccer ball from a distance of 300 miles (480 km).

[JoeyDonuts]

I am a few years out of date, but I think SAR has trouble with clutter/water droplets and vapor over water, which ISAR is not as susceptible to. Memory a bit fuzzy on that.

E-2C has surface search mode. Handy. Most naval helicopters have standard radar, beyond that I won't comment.

There are also a suite of other sensors on P-3 series of patrol planes. Clever stuff. Also no comment.


Ding, ding and ding. You win a cookie.

[Doubt]

E-2C has surface search mode. Handy. Most naval helicopters have standard radar, beyond that I won't comment.

DR

A recent edition of Air & Space Smithsonian had an article about a new version of the E-2 that has improved surface search capability.

[Darth Rotor]

Ding, ding and ding. You win a cookie.
Cookies are outlawed without beer to wash them down, in my house. ;)

[JoeyDonuts]

One of my old CIWS pals told me about an upgrade to the system that allows the engagement of surface targets. Nothing like 20mm tungsten rounds coming at you at 4000 rds/min to wreck your day. I also think they've begun fielding the IROS-3 system. Which is basically a sensor package/C2 module to schwack fast moving surface boats...the business end of which is a 7.62 minigun.

Boom-shaka-laka...Shredded pirate.

[Toke]

The problem is that as long as foreign fishers operate in somali water the somalis have to find a way to support themselfes.
They started with "coastguards" to keep foreign fishers away, and have now evolved to piracy.
A permanent solution will involve a stable country where you can make a living at a honest job. Those are not too common around the world.

Until then it will probably be rather messy at sea.

[Darth Rotor]

The problem is that as long as foreign fishers operate in somali water the somalis have to find a way to support themselfes.
They started with "coastguards" to keep foreign fishers away, and have now evolved to piracy.


Are you referring gto a 12 mile limit, strictly speaking Somali Waters, or a more nebulous 200 mile economic zone?

DR

[JoeyDonuts]

Are you referring gto a 12 mile limit, strictly speaking Somali Waters, or a more nebulous 200 mile economic zone?

DR

EEZ's are great and all, but I don't think mariners or fishers pay that much attention to them. And does the 12nm border represent a line parallel to your coast, or does it reflect the bodies of water you think you're entitled to? Ask ol' Col. Qaddafi that one. He thinks he owns the entire Gulf of Sidra. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Action_in_the_Gulf_of_Sidra_(1986)) Also, the Omanis and Iranians are famous for having territorial pissings over VHF channel 16 about whether or not U.S. naval ships transiting the Strait of Hormuz are violating Iranian waterspace.

[gumboot]

Are you referring gto a 12 mile limit, strictly speaking Somali Waters, or a more nebulous 200 mile economic zone?

DR



Wasn't that tanker grabbed 400nm out to sea?

[JoeyDonuts]

Wasn't that tanker grabbed 400nm out to sea?

And that particular fact leads me to think they have to be using at least some kind of baseline Furuno or similar COMNAV radar. Of course, with any luck the folks at No Such Agency have already fingerprinted it.

[Darth Rotor]

EEZ's are great and all, but I don't think mariners or fishers pay that much attention to them. And does the 12nm border represent a line parallel to your coast, or does it reflect the bodies of water you think you're entitled to? Ask ol' Col. Qaddafi that one. He thinks he owns the entire Gulf of Sidra. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Action_in_the_Gulf_of_Sidra_(1986))
I was in the Coral Sea battle group for some fun and games with Qadaffy Duck and his funny little Line of Death. ;) '86 was my second deployment to the Med.

Go to this pic: http://www.usscoralsea.net/images/cv431986bg2.jpg

The ship directly off the Coral Sea's bow happened to have a much younger and crazier (if possible) salted, sith cynic on board. Ah, the halcyon days of my youth. It was one of the first major deployments of the F/A-18A, wherein it was discovered that the ****** vector logic grid often broke down on the account of gas. Alpha Whiskey was pulling his hair out on a daily basis. Alpha Whiskey was our CO. (I don't think we use that nomenclature anymore.) Deck cycle time of F-18 and F-14 was 15-25 minutes different, and that made all the difference.

DR

[Darth Rotor]

Wasn't that tanker grabbed 400nm out to sea?
Since that is not a fisher ship, huh?

DR

[Kestrel]

And that particular fact leads me to think they have to be using at least some kind of baseline Furuno or similar COMNAV radar. Of course, with any luck the folks at No Such Agency have already fingerprinted it.

The pirates didn't have to detect the tanker from shore. They could have simply loitered out at sea in a mother ship with a standard commercial radar system and waited for a target to pass.

[JoeyDonuts]

Darth, the lingo hasn't changed that much. AW for the most part is still the AAWC, unless specified differently by task group planning.

Would I be correct in assuming you were an OS? Perhaps one with an NEC of 0318?

I would have liked to have been on a cruiser. EW's had it much better on those cans then on a 'Burke. Of course the way CIC is laid out on a DDG, you can drop ass back in the EW module, and the airflow will take it all the way around the horseshoe, smoking out TIC, RSC, MSS, AIC, ASUWC, GUNS, SUWC, the Tomahawkers, and then finally the TAO. It was a thing of beauty every time. Like a wave of disgusted reactions all the way around the space. Yep. Some things I do miss.

[gumboot]

Since that is not a fisher ship, huh?

DR



Nevermind, I read the original post in this particular thread of conversation wrong. :)

[JoeyDonuts]

Bumpin' the thread.

Just noticed our pals the pirates decided to release a ship without the ransom...I believe it was the Yemeni one with the Muslim crew.

PR stunt perhaps? Placating to the Islamic governments?

[Darth Rotor]

Darth, the lingo hasn't changed that much. AW for the most part is still the AAWC, unless specified differently by task group planning.

Would I be correct in assuming you were an OS? Perhaps one with an NEC of 0318?

I was a 1310. The Rotor in my handle has to do with moving airfoils. See also the first line in my sig, then Launch LAMPS. Didn't get to deploy on any Burke class, but I was in the CIC of the John Paul Jones and got all warm and fuzzy inside.

DR

[JoeyDonuts]

A-ha. I speak LAMPS. :) We had a C2W exercise that was M4 (WAY out of date) status the whole time I was there. It's the one where the ALQ-142 sends data to the SLQ-32 piggybacked on the HAWKLINK. The problem was, our goons down in the radio shack could NEVER get us interfaced with it. We tried it with multiple different helos from multiple different ships a multitude of different times and not ONCE did it sync up for us. We managed to get the "red" voice circuit up but that's about it. No data whatsoever. That's really too bad. I always wanted to be an ESMO.

So did you ever get to play ASTAC? That is a critical part of Awfully Slow Warfare, ya know.

[PirateGuy]

So is my pirateship tattoo ill-timed?

[JoeyDonuts]

I wouldn't say that, unless you live in a part of the country where pirate symbology has been co-opted by white supremacist groups.

[PirateGuy]

Not that i've noticed. Then again I don't associate with white supremacist so I have no way to know. Also it is already on so...

It looks great though.

[gumboot]

A-ha. I speak LAMPS. :) We had a C2W exercise that was M4 (WAY out of date) status the whole time I was there. It's the one where the ALQ-142 sends data to the SLQ-32 piggybacked on the HAWKLINK. The problem was, our goons down in the radio shack could NEVER get us interfaced with it. We tried it with multiple different helos from multiple different ships a multitude of different times and not ONCE did it sync up for us. We managed to get the "red" voice circuit up but that's about it. No data whatsoever. That's really too bad. I always wanted to be an ESMO.

So did you ever get to play ASTAC? That is a critical part of Awfully Slow Warfare, ya know.



When I was a GCYH during my POF I had certain aversion to CINA-events and would divert to my SUP at every chance. Had a CINA-3 once that I diverted with the tried and true DWH tactic. :D Ah, good times. Was almost a shame to leave the GC and transfer to WIO. That was all before I went FREECON.

When I was a Garden Center Yard Hand during my Period Of Failure I had certain aversion to Customer In Need of Assistance events and would divert to my Supervisor at every chance. Had Three Customers In Need of Assistance once that I diverted with the tried and true Don't Work Here tactic. :D Ah, good times. Was almost a shame to leave the Garden Center and transfer to Work In an Office. That was all before I became a Freelance Contractor.

[JoeyDonuts]

When I was a GCYH during my POF I had certain aversion to CINA-events and would divert to my SUP at every chance. Had a CINA-3 once that I diverted with the tried and true DWH tactic. :D Ah, good times. Was almost a shame to leave the GC and transfer to WIO. That was all before I went FREECON.

When I was a Garden Center Yard Hand during my Period Of Failure I had certain aversion to Customer In Need of Assistance events and would divert to my Supervisor at every chance. Had Three Customers In Need of Assistance once that I diverted with the tried and true Don't Work Here tactic. :D Ah, good times. Was almost a shame to leave the Garden Center and transfer to Work In an Office. That was all before I became a Freelance Contractor.

Blecccch. I don't eat Acronym Soup from New Zealand.

[Alareth]

Would I be correct in assuming you were an OS?


I was.

Random trivia, my CICO on the Monterey was the man that ID'd the Iranian airbus as a hostile.

[JoeyDonuts]

I was.

Random trivia, my CICO on the Monterey was the man that ID'd the Iranian airbus as a hostile.

From what I was taught about that Vincennes incident, he did everything by the book. I never learned if the EW's ever picked up COMAIR off the guy. I really doubt it...I have yet to meet a TAO that would go Winchester on a contact with correlating ES from a COMAIR.

[Darth Rotor]

A-ha. I speak LAMPS. :) We had a C2W exercise that was M4 (WAY out of date) status the whole time I was there. It's the one where the ALQ-142 sends data to the SLQ-32 piggybacked on the HAWKLINK. The problem was, our goons down in the radio shack could NEVER get us interfaced with it. We tried it with multiple different helos from multiple different ships a multitude of different times and not ONCE did it sync up for us.
Back in the day, I found that if you landed on the ship you had been handed off to and rekeyed the Hawklink using the same gun the ship was using, (this is over a decade ago) that you'd more often get a green over green. Getting both the crypto right, and the initial connection in the various battle computers (still in YK series? ) in CIC synched up tended to be the solution. (Yeah, I know, it's not supposed to require that, but the SLQ 4 back in the day was slightly tempermental. ) If you didn't habitually work with the LAMPS, it was easy for just one piece of gear to be "not right" and screw the works.
We managed to get the "red" voice circuit up but that's about it. No data whatsoever. That's really too bad. I always wanted to be an ESMO.
Playing ESM picket was a boring mission, but it was useful for the EW team in CIC.
So did you ever get to play ASTAC? That is a critical part of Awfully Slow Warfare, ya know.
ASTAC? Brain not parsing the acronym. I guess they had to invent a few new ones. :p

DR

[JoeyDonuts]

ASTAC? Brain not parsing the acronym. I guess they had to invent a few new ones.

ASUW Tactical Aircraft Controller...if I remember correctly.

[Darth Rotor]

ASUW Tactical Aircraft Controller...if I remember correctly.
Well, we had ASACs and ATACOS from H-2 to H-60, who covered all the mission areas the embarked LAMPS covered, which included EW, ASW, ASUW, SSSC, SAR, Cargo/Pax, and so on.

That someone chose to give ASUW its own discrete acronym for this role, since one has to control a variety of aircraft types and sorts in ASUW (F/A, A, S, H, P and so on) makes sense, now that I think of it. Since we routinely worked with an ASAC or an ATACO, any old voice on the ship in CIC on a scope was an ASAC or an ATACO, even though the OS might have been in tracker alley or an AAW pro. *shrugs* As you mentioned earlier, alphabet soup.

DR

[AJM8125]

Bump.

Pirates attack US flagged freighter; USS Bainbridge has reported off Somalia (http://www.reuters.com/article/marketsNews/idUSN0810184520090409?pageNumber=1&virtualBrandChannel=0)

The crew fought off the attack however, their Captain is being held hostage. Interesting event.

[JoeyDonuts]

IIRC, it was more of a case of the skipper exchanging himself for the safety of the crew.

So now we have a life boat with one hostage, four pirates, no possible escape route in any direction, and the USS Bainbridge closing in.

Tough tactical call. Surround them and leave them nowhere to go. Can't go for a shooting solution on a lifeboat. Hostage would get pegged. I think the pirates will trade when they get finally cornered. (P-3's have already pegged its location with ISAR.) They are materially motivated, and I hope they decide for a non-violent end to exchange the captain over.