Defending against the Somali pirates.

Peteee · 12-04-2009 01:26AM

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 · 12-04-2009 01:31AM

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 · 12-04-2009 11:43PM

nogoodnamesleft wrote: »

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

http://scumlord.mybrute.com

nogoodnamesleft · 13-04-2009 02:11PM

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 · 13-04-2009 03:31PM

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 · 13-04-2009 03:43PM

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

thelordofcheese · 13-04-2009 03:53PM

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 · 13-04-2009 04:02PM

they dont look that scary to me

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

ART6 · 13-04-2009 05:20PM

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 · 13-04-2009 05:49PM

silverharp wrote: »

they dont look that scary to me

These guys are scary!!!!!

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

Manic Moran · 13-04-2009 11:05PM

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 · 13-04-2009 11:14PM

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

source

jimmycrackcorm · 13-04-2009 11:27PM

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 · 14-04-2009 01:45AM

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 · 14-04-2009 02:01AM

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 · 14-04-2009 02:18AM

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 · 14-04-2009 07:45PM

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 · 14-04-2009 07:59PM

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

I'm up for the pirates!

Dolbert · 14-04-2009 09:59PM

Somalia is right next to Kenya.

tommyhaas · 14-04-2009 10:12PM

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

GiftofGab · 14-04-2009 10:14PM

why are somali pirates so mean???? they just arrrhhhhh

RonMexico · 14-04-2009 10:21PM

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2009-04/14/content_11184581.htm

Apparently Flipper and his mates decided to fcuk with the pirates today :pac:

ART6 · 16-04-2009 05:17PM

A bit late to rehash this thread, but it occurs to me that in less PC times a country like Britain or France would have sent what they laughingly called "gunboats" but which were actually massively armed men-o-war and they would have blown the s**t out of the pirate bases. In later times the same countries, with the USA, invaded Afghanistan because they didn't like the Taliban, and Iraq because they didn't like Saddam Hussein. Somalia doesn't have oil, but neither does Afghanistan, so what's to stop the obvious historical solution?

ScumLord · 16-04-2009 06:08PM

RonMexico wrote: »

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2009-04/14/content_11184581.htm

Apparently Flipper and his mates decided to fcuk with the pirates today :pac:

That's brilliant! We can put the machine guns on the dolphins, every body wins.

Armin_Tamzarian · 16-04-2009 11:10PM

ScumLord wrote: »

That's brilliant! We can put the machine guns on the dolphins, every body wins.

Or how about some Sharks with frikkin Laser-beams attached?

Insect Overlord · 16-04-2009 11:21PM

Armin_Tamzarian wrote: »

Or how about some Sharks with frikkin Laser-beams attached?

Is it ill-tempered mutated sea-bass..?

Leprachaun · 20-04-2009 10:07PM

Looks like Cartman has heard that pirates are back

Just click the preview on the left.

"BUTTERS AND A SMALL GROUP OF RECRUITS JOIN CARTMAN IN HIS DREAM OF LIVING ON SKULL ISLAND WHERE THEY WILL FROLIC IN CRYSTAL CLEAR WATERFALLS AND DISCOVER BURIED TREASURE. CARTMAN PROMISES THAT PARADISE AWAITS IF THEY CAN JUST GET TO SOMALIA. "

Defending against the Somali pirates.

Comments