News Somali Pirates seize super tanker

[NeoDevin]

I'd say if the people in Somalia aren't excited by metal rain then they might want to rethink embracing a pirate economy.

So you think your country should be able to decide their laws? I'd say the easier action would be to avoid those areas frequented by pirates.

 

[LowlyPion]

So you think your country should be able to decide their laws? I'd say the easier action would be to avoid those areas frequented by pirates.

The latest Saudi Tanker was taken more than 700 km out in the Indian Ocean.

Something has to police them. This would look like the perfect thing for the UN to deal with. I don't expect to decide the laws in their country - that's up to them. If they choose to act in anti-social ways however they should as well be ready to live with the consequences of it. If Piracy is their national policy then that would look like their problem. If it's not then they must do something about it.

I'd offer them the same advice that I would offer kids biking into the sides of birck walls - if it hurts stop doing it.

 

[NeoDevin]

I'd say if the people in Somalia aren't excited by metal rain then they might want to rethink embracing a pirate economy.

Something has to police them.

There's a difference between policing international waters and "metal rain" on the "people in Somalia".

 

[LowlyPion]

There's a difference between policing international waters and "metal rain" on the "people in Somalia".

Right you are. One is a metaphor.

 

[turbo]

So you think your country should be able to decide their laws? I'd say the easier action would be to avoid those areas frequented by pirates.

To avoid the pirates, ships would have to avoid using the Suez Canal to get to ME and eastern ports. This is not inconsequential, especially for European shippers, since it involves routing ship traffic all the way around Africa.

 

[mgb_phys]

The latest Saudi Tanker was taken more than 100 km out in the Indian Ocean.
...
Something has to police them. This would look like the perfect thing for the UN to deal with. I don't expect to decide the laws in their country

Strickly speaking it's only piracy if it's in international waters.
Any ship military or civil has a right to do pretty much anything they want against pirates.
That's why it's normaly a good idea to stop when a coastgaurd or navy vessel asks you.

Upto now it hasn't been a big priority, a typical raid on a freighter gets away with <$5K and so the ship owners weren't interested in fitting $M of weapons and counter measures. There has been a low level of violence, if the crew don't fight back the pirates don't kill anyone so insurers have been wary about putting trigger happy blackhawk mercenaries with rockets on an oil tanker.

It's also been viewed as somebody elses problem. why should a country risk a $Bn warship chasing down pirates who attacked a ship that is registered in Liberia to avoid paying taxes to the country that paid for the warship?
The Royal (ie British) Navy was rather embarrased at being ordered not to deliberatly engage pirates. The concern was that a lucky shot from a pirate would damage some equipement on a very expensive warship and mean it was unable to perform it's main and more important task (cruising up and down the gulf in case Al-Queda turns out to have a battleship).

Hoping to cash in on the headlines, BAE are suddenly claiming that piracy is a role for a new class of very expensive frigets it would like the Navy to order. The problem with current wars is that it's difficult to justify building battleships to fight terrorism, so battleship makers are suffering. And since the current ships were only built to take on the Russian Navy they obviously wouldn't be upto dealing with some speed boats.

 

[LowlyPion]

To avoid the pirates, ships would have to avoid using the Suez Canal to get to ME and eastern ports. This is not inconsequential, especially for European shippers, since it involves routing ship traffic all the way around Africa.

Yes, but ...

The announcement followed Monday's news that the 300,000-metric-ton oil tanker Sirius Star was captured by pirates in the Indian Ocean over the weekend. The hijacking took place more than 720 km (450 miles) off the Kenyan port of Mombasa, well south of the zone patrolled by international warships in an effort to clamp down on the pirates.

http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/africa/11/18/pirates.norway/

That's already a pretty far chunk of ocean away.

 

[turbo]

Yes, but ...

That's already a pretty far chunk of ocean away.

Too bad the A-10 warthog has such a short range. With its Gatling cannon and a load of 8 Mavericks, it would be a great anti piracy tool. The cannon slugs are depleted uranium for armor-penetration, and would turn the Somali "mother ships" to Swiss cheese in seconds.

 

[edward]

They are now using priviouly capture ships to base the smaller boats farther out at sea.

Yesterday, an Indian warship destroyed a pirate "mothership" in the Gulf of Aden. The Indian navy said its frigate, one of the numerous international warships dispatched to patrol the waters around the Horn of Africa, had approached the suspicious vessel on Tuesday evening.

It turned out to be a previously captured ship being used by pirates as a base to launch their speedboats far out to sea.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/nov/20/piracy-somalia1

MOGADISHU, Somalia — Somalia's increasingly brazen pirates are building sprawling stone houses, cruising in luxury cars, marrying beautiful women — even hiring caterers to prepare Western-style food for their hostages.

http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/nov/19/pirates-live-high-life-transform-villages-boomtown/

 

[LowlyPion]

Too bad the A-10 warthog has such a short range. With its Gatling cannon and a load of 8 Mavericks, it would be a great anti piracy tool. The cannon slugs are depleted uranium for armor-penetration, and would turn the Somali "mother ships" to Swiss cheese in seconds.

On a tanker there would be plenty of room to land an Apache. Not a lot of topside rigging to foul the props. After wiping out a few bands of pirates and mother ships then they could all just carry dummied up Apache silhouettes and they would never be certain what they would be dealing with.

 

[mgb_phys]

MOGADISHU, Somalia — Somalia's increasingly brazen pirates are building sprawling stone houses, cruising in luxury cars, marrying beautiful women — even hiring caterers to prepare Western-style food for their hostages.

Nice to know capitalism works somewhere!

You do have to be careful about the dangers of piracy funding revolutionaries though
https://www.amazon.com/dp/0375422846/?tag=pfamazon01-20

I suspect that the danger of piracy will drop in this region now the rules have changed.
Other navies don't want to look 2nd best to India so captains are going to go looking for trouble.
It's hard to hide support vessels in the middle of the ocean.
There is a political will to stop them - they're endangering oil.
Navies don't have much to do in Iraq / Afghanistan other than being a floating cruise missile platform and need to justify themselves.

 

[NeoDevin]

Right you are. One is a metaphor.

Then it's a poorly chosen one.

 

[Proton Soup]

Strickly speaking it's only piracy if it's in international waters.
Any ship military or civil has a right to do pretty much anything they want against pirates.
That's why it's normaly a good idea to stop when a coastgaurd or navy vessel asks you.

Upto now it hasn't been a big priority, a typical raid on a freighter gets away with <$5K and so the ship owners weren't interested in fitting $M of weapons and counter measures. There has been a low level of violence, if the crew don't fight back the pirates don't kill anyone so insurers have been wary about putting trigger happy blackhawk mercenaries with rockets on an oil tanker.

It's also been viewed as somebody elses problem. why should a country risk a $Bn warship chasing down pirates who attacked a ship that is registered in Liberia to avoid paying taxes to the country that paid for the warship?
The Royal (ie British) Navy was rather embarrased at being ordered not to deliberatly engage pirates. The concern was that a lucky shot from a pirate would damage some equipement on a very expensive warship and mean it was unable to perform it's main and more important task (cruising up and down the gulf in case Al-Queda turns out to have a battleship).

Hoping to cash in on the headlines, BAE are suddenly claiming that piracy is a role for a new class of very expensive frigets it would like the Navy to order. The problem with current wars is that it's difficult to justify building battleships to fight terrorism, so battleship makers are suffering. And since the current ships were only built to take on the Russian Navy they obviously wouldn't be upto dealing with some speed boats.

and I'm embarrassed the US isn't doing more to take the pirates out. this is the whole point of having a Navy, protecting trade. these little brushfires need to be stamped out before they get out of control. when these guys start disappearing, their buddies will get the hint.

 

[LowlyPion]

and I'm embarrassed the US isn't doing more to take the pirates out. this is the whole point of having a Navy, protecting trade. these little brushfires need to be stamped out before they get out of control. when these guys start disappearing, their buddies will get the hint.

Our heritage is even extolled in the Marine Hymn.

... to the shores of Tripoli.

We've taken on the Barbary pirate states before, why not the world take on the Somali?

 

[jreelawg]

The latest Saudi Tanker was taken more than 700 km out in the Indian Ocean.

Something has to police them. This would look like the perfect thing for the UN to deal with. I don't expect to decide the laws in their country - that's up to them. If they choose to act in anti-social ways however they should as well be ready to live with the consequences of it. If Piracy is their national policy then that would look like their problem. If it's not then they must do something about it.

I'd offer them the same advice that I would offer kids biking into the sides of birck walls - if it hurts stop doing it.

I don;t know what you mean by "they", or how you know their social behavior. I would say that calling to kill innocent people you don't know because of a hunch they are anti social is kind of anti social. Perhaps it is more to do with bigotry.

 

[jreelawg]

To avoid the pirates, ships would have to avoid using the Suez Canal to get to ME and eastern ports. This is not inconsequential, especially for European shippers, since it involves routing ship traffic all the way around Africa.

It just bugs me a little bit that they won't cover the situation in Somalia, but they will cover the situation right off shore because some persons money is at stake. CNN said that it would cost up to $20,000 more to avoid the canal. So a ship carrying 100 mil in goods cost 20 grand more to operate and it is an international crisis. But then millions are starving and living in anarchy, and all we do there is give funds to warlords to kill "terrorists". Yet CNN doesn't bother to think their viewers would care.

There is a real problem with this country that we go out of our way to great lengths to avoid knowing about what goes on in the world.

 

[LowlyPion]

I don;t know what you mean by "they", or how you know their social behavior. I would say that calling to kill innocent people you don't know because of a hunch they are anti social is kind of anti social. Perhaps it is more to do with bigotry.

I will have to plead guilty to thinking that high seas piracy is anti-social behavior. Just as I would have to suppose that harboring and catering to those that are engaged in such activities must shoulder responsibility as well.

The conditions in Somalia have been dreadful for a long time. And our last efforts there in country were met with a decided hostility. Now that they are behaving out of control - allowing their lawlessness to spill into international waters - that is a concern for the World.

 

[jreelawg]

I will have to plead guilty to thinking that high seas piracy is anti-social behavior. Just as I would have to suppose that harboring and catering to those that are engaged in such activities must shoulder responsibility as well.

The conditions in Somalia have been dreadful for a long time. And our last efforts there in country were met with a decided hostility. Now that they are behaving out of control - allowing their lawlessness to spill into international waters - that is a concern for the World.

Our last effort there was an air strike.

And who may I ask are harboring these pirates?

If your children hadn't eaten in a week and you haven't had a drink of water in two days, and the piracy means that your children might live, are you obligated to spend your final days trying to kill these pirates or run them out in the defense of a multinational corporation?

 

[turbo]

It just bugs me a little bit that they won't cover the situation in Somalia, but they will cover the situation right off shore because some persons money is at stake. CNN said that it would cost up to $20,000 more to avoid the canal. So a ship carrying 100 mil in goods cost 20 grand more to operate and it is an international crisis. But then millions are starving and living in anarchy, and all we do there is give funds to warlords to kill "terrorists". Yet CNN doesn't bother to think their viewers would care.

There is a real problem with this country that we go out of our way to great lengths to avoid knowing about what goes on in the world.

I do not think that the attitude of the "developed world" to the situation in Somalia is anything less than detestable. Piracy should be addressed. Suffering, starvation and displacement of Somalis should be addressed, too. Humanitarian agencies and international aid are being subverted and suppressed by players in that region. It's pretty tough to ask aid agencies to push their people into this region when they cannot be defended. The situation has been very bad for a very long time, and it is getting worse in the sense that "players" in the political/military fields are getting better-organized, they are consolidating their gains, and retaliating fiercely against any counter-efforts. Somalia is a hornet's nest, and the US and the UN do not have the moral high-ground in dealing with it, after allowing degeneration to the current state of affairs.

 

[russ_watters]

Strickly speaking it's only piracy if it's in international waters.

How do you figure?

 

[mgb_phys]

Thats the rules - the idea is that if it happens in a nations territorial waters it's upto to that country's legal authorities to deal with it.
If it's in international waters anybody can respond however they want - they don't have worry about jurisdictions.

 

[turbo]

How do you figure?

Thanks, Russ. It's piracy wherever it occurs. It is actionable under national and international laws depending on where the attack took place.

 

[russ_watters]

and I'm embarrassed the US isn't doing more to take the pirates out.

As am I. Unfortunately, the financial incentive really isn't there, but I think the political capital to be gained by employing the Navy in a mission with true international benefit would be worth it.

Perhaps surprisingly, this would take some fairly significant assets. You need a ship with a helicopter pad and that means a frigate or larger. By my count, we have 32 frigates in service, spread throughout the world, and they deploy 1/3 of the time.

It is not commonly known that ships with displacement hulls are limited in speed by their length. As a result, frigates, at around 450 feet, are limited to 30 knots. Going faster requires either a much larger ship or a much smaller ship with a planing hull. Many countries operate such ships, with top speeds of up to 50 kts, but countries with conventional navies typically do not.

 

[turbo]

As am I. Unfortunately, the financial incentive really isn't there, but I think the political capital to be gained by employing the Navy in a mission with true international benefit would be worth it.

Perhaps surprisingly, this would take some fairly significant assets. You need a ship with a helicopter pad and that means a frigate or larger. By my count, we have 32 frigates in service, spread throughout the world, and they deploy 1/3 of the time.

Also, our fleet of (mainly) Arleigh Burke frigates are the highest-tech boats in the fleet (not really, but that's the bulk of them now), and deploying them to fight piracy in a deteriorating and volatile situation like this would cost the US a LOT of money, and might be less-than-effective in a situation it which long-range detection of the pirates would allow cheaper air-strikes to stop them.

 

[russ_watters]

Burkes are destroyers, not frigates, and are probably not what you want chasing pirates. However, we do sometimes use them and Ticonderoga cruisers for counter drug ops. Our frigates are Oliver Hazard Perry class.

 

[jreelawg]

As am I. Unfortunately, the financial incentive really isn't there, but I think the political capital to be gained by employing the Navy in a mission with true international benefit would be worth it.

Perhaps surprisingly, this would take some fairly significant assets. You need a ship with a helicopter pad and that means a frigate or larger. By my count, we have 32 frigates in service, spread throughout the world, and they deploy 1/3 of the time.

It is not commonly known that ships with displacement hulls are limited in speed by their length. As a result, frigates, at around 450 feet, are limited to 30 knots. Going faster requires either a much larger ship or a much smaller ship with a planing hull. Many countries operate such ships, with top speeds of up to 50 kts, but countries with conventional navies typically do not.

The misconception is that we can just go in, kill the pirates and the problem will be solved. The problem won't be solved until there is some kind of stability in Somalia. Now I know that we can't really achieve that easily, but going in and just stirring up the hornets nest will only breed terrorist support anti americanism and new pirates will just take their place.

I'm not saying the issue doesn't need to be addressed, I just differ in how I think it should be addressed. I think that it is not something that should be done using our navy. I think we should leave it up to the corporations to solve the problem themselves by hiring better security and using new tech. etc.

 

[LowlyPion]

This is a pretty serious problem and getting worse. Surely Somalia is already a tragedy, but the lawlessness will need to be dealt with militarily. That seems to be all they will understand.

Pirates capture Saudi oil tanker

Somali pirates have seized a giant Saudi-owned oil tanker in the Indian Ocean and are steering it towards Somalia, the US Navy reports.

The Sirius Star is the biggest ship ever to be hijacked, with a capacity of 2m barrels - more than one-quarter of Saudi Arabia's daily output.

The vessel was captured on Saturday some 450 nautical miles (830km) off the Kenyan coast.

... As of 30 September, 12 vessels remained captive and under negotiation with more than 250 crew being held hostage.

Pirates remain active and regularly strike in the region. In the past week alone:

• A Russian warship in the Gulf of Aden drove off pirates who tried to capture the Saudi Arabian merchant ship Rabih

• Pirates hijacked a Japanese cargo ship off Somalia

• A Chinese fishing boat was seized off the Kenyan coast

• A Turkish ship transporting chemicals to India was hijacked off Yemen

• The UK's Royal Navy shot dead two suspected pirates attacking a Danish cargo-ship off the coast of Yemen

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/7733482.stm

 

[jreelawg]

I got an idea, we could replace the crews with robots and control the ship with GPS. The only worry there is that we may end up importing pirates.

 

[russ_watters]

The misconception is that we can just go in, kill the pirates and the problem will be solved.

Perhaps not "solved", but drastically reduced. The nature of the crime requires significant resources and a varying risk to the participants. Decimate their resources and vastly increase the risk and the problem will be all but solved.

 

[russ_watters]

I got an idea, we could replace the crews with robots and control the ship with GPS.

You'd be surprised at how close that is to how they are operated now. These days, the only person on the bridge of a merchant ship when a ship is in the open ocean is a poorly paid lookout who'se primary function is to wake the captain up if the litte red warning light on the GPS starts blinking.

 

[mgb_phys]

Wasn't that the airforce plan to replace flight engineers with dogs.
The dog's job was to bite the pilot if he tried to touch the controls while the computer was flying the plane.

 

[jreelawg]

Maybe the companies should negotiate a toll so long as they agree to invest the money into helping somalia. If the pirating continues, then they don't get the toll. Heck, make it worldwide, all corporate ships that pass by third world countries must pay a toll going towards development.

 

[mheslep]

...One main reason that U.N. workers are so threatened is due to a U.S. air strike on one of Somalia's most famine ridden cities in an attempt at killing a terrorist, carried out under GWB.

Nonsense.

 

[russ_watters]

Maybe the companies should negotiate a toll so long as they agree to invest the money into helping somalia.

Since the pirates don't care about Somalia (except insofar as they enjoy the lawlessness), that'll last about 20 minutes.

Heck, make it worldwide, all corporate ships that pass by third world countries must pay a toll going towards development.

Please google the words international waters.

You are making rediculous posts here. We have standards.

 

[mheslep]

... I think we should leave it up to the corporations to solve the problem themselves by hiring better security and using new tech. etc.

Turn it over to Blackwater then?

 

[jreelawg]

Nonsense.

"Beyond the warlord and clan fighting, there is now a budding conflict with Western aid workers. The Bush administration has said that terrorists with Al Qaeda are hiding in Somalia, sheltered by local Islamists, and has gone after them with American airstrikes. But a recent American attack on an Islamist leader in Dusa Marreb, a town in the center of the drought zone, has spawned a wave of revenge threats against Western aid workers."

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/17/world/africa/17somalia.html?_r=1&pagewanted=2

 

[Proton Soup]

The misconception is that we can just go in, kill the pirates and the problem will be solved. The problem won't be solved until there is some kind of stability in Somalia. Now I know that we can't really achieve that easily, but going in and just stirring up the hornets nest will only breed terrorist support anti americanism and new pirates will just take their place.

I'm not saying the issue doesn't need to be addressed, I just differ in how I think it should be addressed. I think that it is not something that should be done using our navy. I think we should leave it up to the corporations to solve the problem themselves by hiring better security and using new tech. etc.

you're right, we shouldn't stir them up. just exterminate them and leave. no point in drawing attention.

 

[jreelawg]

you're right, we shouldn't stir them up. just exterminate them and leave. no point in drawing attention.

Exterminate who?

 

[Proton Soup]

Exterminate who?

pirates

 

[Office_Shredder]

So your gameplan is: let's kill them without them caring. Someone else work out the details

 

[mgb_phys]

So your gameplan is: let's kill them without them caring. Someone else work out the details

Welcome to PF Mr Rumsfeld!

 

[turbo]

Piracy is a great-paying job with low risk to the pirates, so trying to kill them all is problematic - the guys in charge can recruit more crews. Even more problematic is rescuing them from the sea after you destroy their ships - what do you do with them once you have them?

Maybe my Warthog (A-10) suggestion would work, after all. Just have the ships in the region follow coastal routes, to stay within sortie radius of the 'Hogs.

 

[mgb_phys]

Or naturally you ask an astronomer!
Freeman Dyson was one of the inventers of operational research in WWII - one of his conclusions was that is was pointless attacking U-Boats in open ocean (impossible to find) or U-Boat bases in France (too strong and too much risk to civilians).
Instead you looked for the milchcows - the large supply submarines that refuled and rearmed the U boats. These craft were unarmed, too large to manouvere quickly and had to remain in known locations for a long time - so easy targets. Sinking one of them put a dozen U boats out of action.

RIBs can't reach a ship 500km offshore without support. So instead of having $Bn missile cruisers chasing after and firing $M missiles at every dhow that comes within range you just find any boat that is sitting in the middle of the ocean not moving (from satelite imagery) send a destroyer to stand by out of AK47 range and ask what it is doing - and then sink it with cheap 30mm cannon fire.

 

[Borek]

sink it with cheap 30mm cannon fire.

I have long ago suggested that good machine gun is all that is necessary to deal with the problem. Guided missiles, cruisers etc. are an insanely expensive overkill.

Put two real machine guns on every fourth ship and two mockups on each one of the other three. It's called russian roulette.

 

[Proton Soup]

So your gameplan is: let's kill them without them caring. Someone else work out the details

i think it would be better for you as a person to kill them without caring. if you put hatred behind it, it only hurts yourself. what details?

Piracy is a great-paying job with low risk to the pirates, so trying to kill them all is problematic - the guys in charge can recruit more crews. Even more problematic is rescuing them from the sea after you destroy their ships - what do you do with them once you have them?

Maybe my Warthog (A-10) suggestion would work, after all. Just have the ships in the region follow coastal routes, to stay within sortie radius of the 'Hogs.

no, no, no, that is not the plan. you don't rescue them. that would be problematic. these are not sailors nor soldiers.

 

[turbo]

I have long ago suggested that good machine gun is all that is necessary to deal with the problem. Guided missiles, cruisers etc. are an insanely expensive overkill.

Put two real machine guns on every fourth ship and two mockups on each one of the other three. It's called russian roulette.

That could be scary on some ships. Let's say you have a tanker carrying volatile chemicals and the crew starts firing at pirates only to get return fire via machine guns, RPGs, etc? Boom!

 

[Office_Shredder]

i think it would be better for you as a person to kill them without caring. if you put hatred behind it, it only hurts yourself. what details?

I don't think you understood. Your contribution to the "let's kill them" plan was that it should be done emotionlessly. That's not a contribution at all. Who's going to kill them? How will they pay for it? How will they kill them? How will they find where to kill them? How do you find out who's supposed to be killed?

These pirates have to be more than a little creative, I don't imagine they'll continue sitting out in the ocean in unmarked boats not respoding to hails by a navy if that's how warships identify which boats are pirate ones and which ones aren't

 

[out of whack]

That could be scary on some ships. Let's say you have a tanker carrying volatile chemicals and the crew starts firing at pirates only to get return fire via machine guns, RPGs, etc? Boom!

I was thinking the same thing. Pirates attack tanker. Tanker fires back. Pissed pirates sink tanker to teach everyone else a lesson for the next time. Live by the sword, die by the sword. Banks and 7-Elevens train their staff to fully cooperate with robbers for good reasons.

 

[Borek]

OK, tankers are out of the question

Still, I don't think you need billion dollars hardware to deal with the problem. We were talking TOWs, Javelins, Hellfires earlier - for the price of one launcher and few missiles you can put heavy machine gun on many cargo ships, making them much less likely to become targets. When targeted ships start to reply with fire, pirating becomes high risk job and there are less pirates. Right now they don't have to fear anything.

 

[Proton Soup]

I don't think you understood. Your contribution to the "let's kill them" plan was that it should be done emotionlessly. That's not a contribution at all. Who's going to kill them? How will they pay for it? How will they kill them? How will they find where to kill them? How do you find out who's supposed to be killed?

These pirates have to be more than a little creative, I don't imagine they'll continue sitting out in the ocean in unmarked boats not respoding to hails by a navy if that's how warships identify which boats are pirate ones and which ones aren't

no, i think i suggested that the US Navy do it. other navies like the Brits, Iranians, or whoever else is having their ships seized should join in. the navies are already funded to do this sort of thing. as was already mentioned in this thread, it is part of the US Marines' history. protecting our ships from piracy also protected the republic. it's their job. I'm not sure why you think it is my job to come up with a detailed plan for doing something the Navy should already have good experience with.