Defending against the Somali pirates.

jayteecork

So I'm sick of hearing about Merchant Ships being captured by at most 10 Africans weilding Ak47s and driving inflatabale dingies.

How on earth are they getting away with for so long?

Why don't you arm the crew with some automatic firearms, and shoot the bastards as they climb up the rope or however they do it.

The height advantage and ability to fire down completely sheltered should do away with these nasty c***s.

Dudess

Well it must not be as straightforward as that, otherwise the US would have intervened. There's bound to be a good explanation for the inaction.

Snowie

but in fairness black people really are crap at shooting

so what 30 rounds in an ak47 what are the chances of 2 of you hitting you id say the odds are in your favour fire axe ftw

Thomas_S_Hunterson

Dudess wrote: »

There's bound to be a good explanation for the inaction.

Somalia has no oil.

luckylucky

been there, done that.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055535623

Jimbo

Apparently the pirates are usually heavily armed (RPGs, etc) so shooting at them might'nt be the best idea.

Terry

Dudess wrote: »

Well it must not be as straightforward as that, otherwise the US would have intervened. There's bound to be a good explanation for the inaction.

They may be overstretched.
I was gonna use that pic to start a thread in US politics, but then remember that I don't really care that much.

Hogzy

Ships tend not to carry firearms as it increases the risk of a serious injury at sea, its completely understandable!

There has to be some solution out there to be able to prevent people climbing on board anyways, Like extra high walls or something like that...i dunno im not a ship design person but a problem of people climbing on board should be easily solvable!

TheZohanS

Jimbo wrote: »

Apparently the pirates are usually heavily armed (RPGs, etc) so shooting at them might'nt be the best idea.

Never underestimate heavily armed Really P1ssed-off Grannys.

Hagar

RPGs have only one use, to inflict damage on armoured targets using the hollow charge principle They are not high explosive and don't have much of a kill radius. If they miss you, they miss you. There is little chance of being injured by a near miss. Take into account the poor training in its use that the attackers would have you would be pretty safe going up against it with an automatic pistol and a pointy stick. I'd be more afraid of the AK47s as they are far easier to aim properly. IMHO fear is the enemy of the crews, they need to defend themselves with everything at their disposal from the first hint of trouble. A small boat coming under fire from trained men on a height and from behind steel plate decking etc shouldn't stand a chance.

Terry

Hagar wrote: »

RPGs have only one use, to inflict damage on armoured targets using the hollow charge principle They are not high explosive and don't have much of a kill radius. If they miss you, they miss you. There is little chance of being injured by a near miss. Take into account the poor training in its use that the attackers would have you would be pretty safe going up against it with an automatic pistol and a pointy stick. I'd be more afraid of the AK47s as they are far easier to aim properly. IMHO fear is the enemy of the crews, they need to defend themselves with everything at their disposal from the first hint of trouble. A small boat coming under fire from trained men on a height and from behind steel plate decking etc shouldn't stand a chance.

A couple of hand grenades would sort that.
Seriously.
Just lob the ****ers at the small boat. One of them has to hit the target.
It none do, they would at least scare the pirates off.

Just hire someone trained in throwing grenades as a deck hand or something.
Cheaper than losing your cargo and paying more in insurance.

TheZohanS

Hagar wrote: »

RPGs have only one use, to inflict damage on armoured targets using the hollow charge principle They are not high explosive and don't have much of a kill radius. If they miss you, they miss you. There is little chance of being injured by a near miss. Take into account the poor training in its use that the attackers would have you would be pretty safe going up against it with an automatic pistol and a pointy stick. I'd be more afraid of the AK47s as they are far easier to aim properly. IMHO fear is the enemy of the crews, they need to defend themselves with everything at their disposal from the first hint of trouble. A small boat coming under fire from trained men on a height and from behind steel plate decking etc shouldn't stand a chance.

What about babysitting?

Sean_K

Sean_K wrote: »

Somalia has no oil.

Neither did Vietnam and how long were they there?
They do have some sort of interest in Somalia that I cant explain not an interest like Iraq though. But enough of an interest to side with the gangs they previously fought against to oppose the Islamic forces that almost took over the entire country. The Islamic forces spread law and order while they advanced and installed government (yes it was Sharia law though).

The pirates are fairly well organised so it seems with whole communities behind them and are better armed than just a bunch of AK47s. . . !

http://uk.reuters.com/article/UKNews1/idUKTRE53A0ZJ20090411

a Portuguese warship protecting shipping lanes from piracy, said an unexploded rocket-propelled grenade landed in the commanding officer's cabin during the attack and bullets were fired at the ship.

If the boyos are gettin away with shooting rockets and bullets at Naval ships then this has got to have something more to it??

RE them not having oil - it still affects countries economically -wasnt a huge oil tranporter caught before? The UN even passed a resolution on this allowing nations do "whatever is necessary" to stop the pirates!

UN resolution 1816, which was approved on June 2, 2008, allows foreign navies to enter Somalian territorial waters to pursue pirates while resolution 1838, which was passed on October 20, 2008, authorises the use of “necessary means” to combat piracy in international waters

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/msid-3738889,flstry-1.cms

Hogzy

I think the use of grenades on an oil tanker might be a little bit overkill!

dlofnep

Nukes, tbh.

ScumLord

These men may not be trained but they have experience in firing weapons and attacking ships. That does count for allot.

blogga

One of the great advantages of living in the dismal backwater of the Repuberlic is that it is extremely unlikely that we will have to defend against the Somali pirates. You may rest easy now. Easy now.

Nodin

Dudess wrote: »

Well it must not be as straightforward as that, otherwise the US would have intervened.

No oil?

Nodin

jayteecork wrote: »

So I'm sick of hearing about Merchant Ships being captured by at most 10 Africans weilding Ak47s and driving inflatabale dingies.

How on earth are they getting away with for so long?

Why don't you arm the crew with some automatic firearms, and shoot the bastards as they climb up the rope or however they do it.

The height advantage and ability to fire down completely sheltered should do away with these nasty c***s.

Africas fairly conservative. A few men dancing around shirtless and some strapping fellow with a big mustache and nice leather cap winking suggestively should see them off.

ShooterSF

We've been over this before the damage they do is more than negated by the reduction in global warming we see from their existence.

Armin_Tamzarian

This would never have happened if they had hired a better cook...

http://www.iwatchstuff.com/2008/10/02/under-siege-seagal.jpg

tony1kenobi

jayteecork wrote: »

So I'm sick of hearing about Merchant Ships being captured by at most 10 Africans weilding Ak47s and driving inflatabale dingies.
How on earth are they getting away with for so long?
Why don't you arm the crew with some automatic firearms, and shoot the bastards as they climb up the rope or however they do it.
The height advantage and ability to fire down completely sheltered should do away with these nasty c***s.

Morality and civility would be two immediate assumptions.

If you really want to beat an enemy at sea what you need to do is employ Russel Crowe to be a hard 19th century captain. Add a poofish Irish doctor to be level headed and what you have is alot of dead pirates, funny costumes and rum.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zzG4K2m_j5U

The natives wouldnt stand a chance!

partyatmygaff

I think way too many people play Call of Duty 4 and the like to actually see why the US dont just send in 50 men armed with M4A1s and combat gear to get rid of the pirates.
The pirates see one enemy soldier and they'll kill a hostage, 1 hostage dies and they'll threaten to kill them all if attacked.

More than likely they've already planned to infiltrate the boat with a small group of 2-3 expert soldiers to sneak in and kill as many pirates as possible and save the hostages, solid snake style

nogoodnamesleft

Probably a way too serious answer for After Hours but here goes....My occupation brings me on board merchant vessels from time to time and I have sailed though the Suez on more than one occasion. Anyways trying to police weapons on that have been issued on board would be a huge task, never mind on a fleet of vessels. Ammunition etc would be a fire hazzard and what would happen on the occassion that crew men have a disagreement? Some ship management companies have a big enough problem trying to limit the alcohol comsumed on board and some have prohibited it! as it led to deaths, falling down flights of stairs and punchups. Plus by entering different waters they would be goverened by that countries legislation regarding firearms.

The vessels used sail around 100 nautical miles off the coast but have pushed it out to about to 300 - 400 nautical miles as they origionally thought the pirates speed boats would not venture out that far. Since the Sirrus Star incident some ships have stopped using the Suez are are instead sailing around the Cape of Good Hope.

Biggins

Take into account that having registered firearms on a ship also means that there is a heap of paperwork to be filled in with every dock entry and exit.
Also because of onboard arms, most dockland security (at the instance of a government) also do more intensive additional full searches of entire ships as well.
What it all adds up to is a series of further delays for each ship for each port.

This is on top of men having been confined on what is closed space for sometimes long periods, sometimes snap in the heat of moments.
So the idea that firearms might be used at those moments don't make a captain or two happy sometimes lol.
Add to that the possibility that accidents happen with these weapons also on board what sometimes carries volatile items such as gas, etc...

The primary reason however given for not carrying weapons on board as far as the shipping companies are concerned is the first one.

A-Trak

Hagar wrote: »

RPGs have only one use, to inflict damage on armoured targets using the hollow charge principle......

*Scratches HMS Hagar off his pirate target list*

Jonty

ScumLord wrote: »

These men may not be trained but they have experience in firing weapons and attacking ships. That does count for allot.

Does anybody know if they are hiring??

KerranJast

Deleted User wrote: »

Neither did Vietnam and how long were they there?
They do have some sort of interest in Somalia that I cant explain not an interest like Iraq though. But enough of an interest to side with the gangs they previously fought against to oppose the Islamic forces that almost took over the entire country. The Islamic forces spread law and order while they advanced and installed government (yes it was Sharia law though).

The US sided with the anti-Islamist gangs as they were the only thing stopping Al Quaeda from setting up shop there a la Afghanistan in the 90s. Lesser of two evils IMO. If the International community organised a proper convoy system these incidents would fall off rapidly. The pirates may be cocky but only a insane man would go up against a Battleship in a dinghy. Alternatively the UN could hire the Indian Navy, who have been asking for ages, to act as a regional naval patrol in the area. They'd have to allow the Indians to use deadly force though which could prove problematic to get approved.

mikemac

nogoodnamesleft wrote: »

Probably a way too serious answer for After Hours but here goes....My occupation brings me on board merchant vessels from time to time and I have sailed though the Suez on more than one occasion. Anyways trying to police weapons on that have been issued on board would be a huge task, never mind on a fleet of vessels. Ammunition etc would be a fire hazzard and what would happen on the occassion that crew men have a disagreement? Some ship management companies have a big enough problem trying to limit the alcohol comsumed on board and some have prohibited it! as it led to deaths, falling down flights of stairs and punchups. Plus by entering different waters they would be goverened by that countries legislation regarding firearms.

Interesting post.

Fair enough if they won't give the crew access to weapons. But much like navy ships carry marines, could the merchant ships not carry a team of military personnel on loan from some country?
They hold the weapons, not the crew

But then maybe the captain needs to control everything. It's seems an obvious solution but it's never quite that simple.

nomorebadtown

Small highly trained private security teams, well armed, that are put on vessels due to sail through dangerous waters. They stay seperate from the crew and only become active when there is an attack.

Somewhere, somehow, someone's going to pay.

Peteee

jayteecork wrote: »

Why don't you arm the crew with some automatic firearms, and shoot the bastards as they climb up the rope or however they do it.

I'm fairly sure this is the same suggestion as saying 'If your being robbed by robbers, just pull out a shotgun and shoot the attackers'

Just because your on the high seas doesn't make one immune to laws.

mikemac

nomorebadtown wrote: »

Small highly trained private security teams, well armed, that are put on vessels due to sail through dangerous waters. They stay seperate from the crew and only become active when there is an attack.

Somewhere, somehow, someone's going to pay.

The insurance companies can pay, it'd probably save them money from all these claims that are being made

ScumLord

nogoodnamesleft wrote: »

and what would happen on the occassion that crew men have a disagreement?

http://scumlord.mybrute.com

nogoodnamesleft

mikemac wrote: »

Interesting post.

Fair enough if they won't give the crew access to weapons. But much like navy ships carry marines, could the merchant ships not carry a team of military personnel on loan from some country?
They hold the weapons, not the crew

But then maybe the captain needs to control everything. It's seems an obvious solution but it's never quite that simple.

You would have a lot of logistical issues regarding carrying military personnel. Issues such as crew retention are huge at the moment on board vessels even for ordinary seamen never mind military personnel. Paperwork, immigration issues depending on nationality of the personnel, change over of personnel after their term at sea wouldnt be feasable for the fleet management companies point of view due to the cost incurred. Many vessels have a personnel count of about 22 on merchant vessels some tankers etc have more. You would need the same again to defend there vessels as most are a few hundred meters long.

Agamemnon

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/7996659.stm

BBC wrote:

The BBC's Jonah Fisher in Mombasa says the one remaining question surrounding the Maersk Alabama is how its crew of merchant seamen managed to fight off Somali pirates equipped with AK-47s.

The crew refused to provide an answer because they said the techniques they used were being kept secret to help other ships resist pirate attack.

Sounds intriguing, wonder what they did?

Capt Phillips told his crew to lock themselves in a cabin and surrendered himself to safeguard his men.

Brave man, he deserves the highest honour a civilian seaman can get. The Navy SEAL snipers must be really at the top of their game - I'd imagine it's fairly difficult to hit a target that could be bobbing up and down in a lifeboat.

meglome

I say we kidnap their parrots and hold them to ransom.

thelordofcheese

mikemac wrote: »

Fair enough if they won't give the crew access to weapons. But much like navy ships carry marines, could the merchant ships not carry a team of military personnel on loan from some country?

Because that would cost $Texas and shipping companies like to make a profit.

silverharp

they dont look that scary to me

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3AzpByR3MvI

ART6

As an ex oil tanker chief engineer (many years ago now) I would say that the one thing you don't want is anyone firing off guns on the maindeck when the ship is fully loaded with crude oil. Then, an RPG only has to hit the cargo pump room or the forepeak valve room to set off a very big bang indeed -- an explosion in the former has been known to blow a ship into two halves. Even a bullet from a modern asault rifle can (I'm told) penetrate the ships hull plating.

But even if you arm the crew or put tactical teams on board, a tanker is a very big target from 500 yards, while a fast small boat is an impossible one unless you have a phalanx gun mounting like they use on warships for shooting down missiles. In any case, a fully loaded tanker may be carrying $50 millions worth of oil and be worth $20 millions itself. A $10 million ransom is almost a price worth paying.

In my seagoing career the one thing I discovered, although dealing with those who wanted to board to steal rather than pirates as such, was that a ten inch steel blank flange from the engine room stores, dropped from a height of 40 feet, would go right through the bottom of a boat and give the occupants food for thought.

The solution to the problem though, I suspect, is to reinstate the concept of Q ships that was used in the two world wars -- ships that looked like cargo vessels but had hidden gunnery and military crews that could take on a fleet. Kill all the bastards. Problem solved:D

Hogzy

silverharp wrote: »

they dont look that scary to me

These guys are scary!!!!!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v61sBTr7P-w

Manic Moran

Then, an RPG only has to hit the cargo pump room or the forepeak valve room to set off a very big bang indeed -- an explosion in the former has been known to blow a ship into two halves. Even a bullet from a modern asault rifle can (I'm told) penetrate the ships hull plating.

Is either room easy to hit from the waterline?
Bear in mind that the effective penetration of an RPG warhead is on the order of a foot, so the compartments in question would need to be against the hull. Beyond that, the plasma jet dissipates.

Bear in mind that during the Tanker War, tankers were being hit with weapons a tad bigger than RPGs, and it took three years of fighting before the first tanker went down. (Hit with an Exocet anti-ship missile). Of the 239 tankers hit, some 70% by anti-ship cruise missiles, the rest mainly by aircraft bombs and missiles, less than a quarter were sunk or declared constructive losses compared to over a third of container and general cargo ships. Partially because of size, and partially because crude in a tanker is not actually all that flammable due to a lack of oxygen in the compartments (The consistency and temperature help too. During the Falklands, a bomb went through HMS Antrim's bunker and started a fire in the missile magazine. The fire was put out by the fuel leaking through the hole the bomb made)

Whilst your concern obviously has some merit, there are risks involved with everything, it really comes down to 'just how much risk are we talking about here?'

NTM

Insect Overlord

What's everyone complaining about, more pirates means less global warming!

source

jimmycrackcorm

They should hire dublin bus drivers to pilot ships. What chance have pirates when you see how noone gets no board past the busstop.

Victor

Hagar, its hard to miss a ship.

Manic Moran wrote: »

Is either room easy to hit from the waterline?
Bear in mind that the effective penetration of an RPG warhead is on the order of a foot, so the compartments in question would need to be against the hull. Beyond that, the plasma jet dissipates.

Well, it can depnd on the round. A photo I saw of a truck in Iraq had a head-sized hole on the entry side and a car-sized hole on the exit sized.

Now if the ship is carrying refined fuel or sensative chemicals, any explosion could be severely problematic.

Amalgam

ART6 wrote: »

In my seagoing career the one thing I discovered, although dealing with those who wanted to board to steal rather than pirates as such, was that a ten inch steel blank flange from the engine room stores, dropped from a height of 40 feet, would go right through the bottom of a boat and give the occupants food for thought.

Simple stuff. I read of crews successfully using fire hoses, to stop any attackers getting a foothold.

ArphaRima

I've been thinking quite a bit about the Maersk Alabama, her crews actions and piracy in general.

First off the situation is far more complicated than one would assume. These pirate gangs are not just 5 lads in a dinghy with AK47s and rpg's. They are usually part of a far greater organisation on land.
Now the USA and France are taking the hard line, we may see the pirates doing the same. Executing prisoners etc. Dont forget that the pirates tried to manouver a second ship out to find the lifeboat containing the hijackers/pirates.
They are organised, emboldened by their success, and becoming very rich men in their hometowns by doing this. It will get worse.


-Small arms can do enough damage to cost the company millions in repairs. Far more than a ransom would cost.
-The military cannot possibly react quickly enough to a hijack attempt. Not even using air support and marines from ships nearby. It takes maybe 20 minutes to hijack a ship. It takes quite a bit longer to dispatch an armed force.
-An armed force onboard would bring with it many more headaches for the owners. Insurance companies would hate it, thus costing millions. Liability for deaths caused would be enough to rule out this option. An armed force cannot legally fire on anyone without laws in place to protect them.
-The laws need changing. An international convention needs to be held to empower crews, captains, etc to legally use lethal force if needs be on the high seas to protect her cargo. I imagine the law probably empowers the crew to protect themselves and the ship from harm, but not from ransom attempts. Also the jurisdiction on trying these pirates needs to be cleaned up. We need the ability to attack, arrest, detain, and generally molest the operations on land. Pirate bases are clearly known. Legal issues need to be ironed out to allow navies to mount operations.

One thing for sure is the answer will come down to money. The most economic way will prevail. Which to me is for them to do nothing, and let the navies take care of it.

Something that has been bothering me though is this. How the hell did the crew manage to overpower, repel and even capture one of the pirates?
I cant think of an order of events that would lead to an armed boarding party retreating from unarmed crewmembers, while one pirate was captured and reportedly "bleeding all over the place".

tommyhaas

There are far to many issues with regard to the carrying of arms by merchant seamen for it ever to be a possibility. When you consider that everything used on deck must be intrinsically safe, the idea of arming the crew is remote. While anti-piracy drills are conducted weekly using water cannons, my preference (as a serving seafarer with a tanker co) is for naval escorts, while passages should be planned as far offshore as is possible.

nice1franko

http://www.sfbayview.com/2009/you-are-being-lied-to-about-pirates/

I'm up for the pirates!

Dolbert

Somalia is right next to Kenya.

tommyhaas

nice1franko wrote: »

http://www.sfbayview.com/2009/you-are-being-lied-to-about-pirates/

I'm up for the pirates!

The're only scumbags using illegal fishing/dumping as justification for taking innocent merchant crews hostage. The're only interest is in making a few million through this. Plenty of Irish fishermen have had their stocks depleted by foreign vessels, so by the logic in that link they should turn there hands to piracy. Its b***ox