News Somali Pirates seize super tanker

  • Thread starter Thread starter edward
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the rising issue of Somali piracy, particularly the hijacking of super tankers, and the need for advanced technological solutions to combat it. Participants express frustration over the ease with which pirates can board large vessels and suggest aggressive military responses, including the use of Apache helicopters and armed personnel on ships. There is also debate about the motivations behind piracy, with some arguing that economic desperation drives these actions, while others emphasize the need for a strong military response to deter future attacks. The conversation highlights the complexities of addressing piracy, including the challenges of enforcing law and order in Somalia and the potential consequences for global shipping. Ultimately, the discussion underscores the urgent need for effective strategies to protect maritime interests against piracy.
  • #101
Office_Shredder said:
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

One thing is that the pirates are fishermen. If you see a Somalian fishing boats, just floating out their not moving, and you sink em all, then you get blamed for destroying Somalia's fishing industry. That in itself wouldn't look like a good mistake to be made to a country who is having a hard enough time feeding itself.

The only solutions to the problem are one, equip the ships with better defense, and two employ intelligence to figure out where the money comes and goes, and get the sophisticated guys at the top of the chain.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #102
Success breeds failure. This sort of thing will not set well and there will be repercussions for such demands.
Pirates Demand $25 Million Ransom for Hijacked Tanker

By Caroline Alexander and Hamsa Omar

Nov. 21 (Bloomberg) -- Somali pirates demanded $25 million in ransom for an oil-laden Saudi supertanker seized off the East African coast, and called on its owners to pay up ``soon.''

``What we want for this ship is only $25 million because we always charge according to the quality of the ship and the value of the product,'' a man who identified himself as Abdi Salan, a member of the hijacking gang, said in a telephone interview yesterday from Harardhare. The town is in Somalia's semi- autonomous northern Puntland region close to where the ship is anchored. The man didn't give a deadline or say what would happen if the money isn't paid.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aCIG0fK4PxfM&refer=worldwide

Maybe contract with the Israelis to commando in and free the tanker? How would that be for rapprochement?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #103
Another option would be to declare war on Somalia.

If the government can't or won't do anything, go in and clean sweep the coast from Djibouti to Kenya.
 
  • #104
Proton Soup said:
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.
The US Marines have been fighting piracy and protecting shipping for over 200 years. Of course, they're stretched pretty thin right now, punishing all the Iraqis for attacking us on 9/11.
 
  • #105
turbo-1 said:
The US Marines have been fighting piracy and protecting shipping for over 200 years. Of course, they're stretched pretty thin right now, punishing all the Iraqis for attacking us on 9/11.

the spice must flow
 
  • #106
LowlyPion said:
Another option would be to declare war on Somalia.

If the government can't or won't do anything, go in and clean sweep the coast from Djibouti to Kenya.
If that's not tongue and cheek: Who should declare war, and who should 'go in'?
 
  • #107
turbo-1 said:
The US Marines have been fighting piracy and protecting shipping for over 200 years. Of course, they're stretched pretty thin right now, punishing all the Iraqis for attacking us on 9/11.
The Barbary pirates were attacking US flagged vessels.
 
  • #108
... And the Navy hasn't used Marines for shipboard security in something like 150 years.
 
  • #109
mheslep said:
The Barbary pirates were attacking US flagged vessels.
There are currently no US flagged commercial vessels in intercontinental trade anymore. Yes, the Barbary pirates were attacking US commercial vessels, but they were attacking vessels of almost all nations, and when the Marines stomped on them, the Mediterranean became safer for all. Our ancestors had US interests at heart 200+ years ago, but the effort benefited all commercial shipping in that region.
 
  • #110
russ_watters said:
... And the Navy hasn't used Marines for shipboard security in something like 150 years.

I'm sure they take to training well.
 
  • #111
Borek said:
OK, tankers are out of the question :wink:

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.


We now need to use stand off weapons. We can not expect a ships crew to get into a fire fight against antiaircraft guns. I am in favor of using the expensive weapons because that is what we have.

The USA has numerous storage facilities containing a variety of suitable missiles. Most of the older TOW missiles will probably end up on the scrap pile anyway.

Given the pirates' emerging new tactics and technologies, such as using 'mother ships' to transport smaller attack boats out to sea, global positioning systems and satellite phones, it should be expected that the range of pirate activity will increase," he said.

Last week, pirates seized their greatest prize yet, the supertanker MV Sirius Star, far south of the Somali coastline. The ship, carrying 2 million barrels of oil and 25 crew members, is now anchored off a Somali port.

Analysts say the Somali gangs have invested much of the estimated $150 million in ransom paid so far in new speedboats equipped with added firepower, including heavy 14.5 mm anti-aircraft machine guns and rocket-propelled grenade launchers — a serious threat to even the largest merchant vessels.


http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jxCY0MWanMyUjwh42ms-gUK_2tAQD94JG02O1
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #112
It would be a hell of a thing if pirates stole several American made TOW weapons. I'm sure they could would be worth the trouble on the black market.
 
  • #113
edward said:
Analysts say the Somali gangs have invested much of the estimated $150 million in ransom paid so far in new speedboats equipped with added firepower, including heavy 14.5 mm anti-aircraft machine guns and rocket-propelled grenade launchers — a serious threat to even the largest merchant vessels.

That changes situation. That's one of the Murphy's laws (Left to themselves, things tend to go from bad to worse) at work.
 
  • #114
Borek said:
That changes situation. That's one of the Murphy's laws (Left to themselves, things tend to go from bad to worse) at work.
That brings the A-10's back into play. With adequate surveillance adapted to the A-10's response times (they are not the fastest birds in the sky, just about the deadliest to small ships, though) they could put a big dent in piracy. Keep the cargo ships near coastal routes and use land-based A-10s to protect them. If suspicious boats are closing and refuse to respond to hails, sink them.
 
  • #115
I read today that they only have about 20 tankers a day passing through the area. If other merchant ships are more than that, perhaps there are a total of 50 major merchant ships a day. It seems to me the answer would then be to organize convoys. Every 6 hours you get 12-14 ships together with a frigate to escort them through the region. It's about 1500 miles, or a 60 hour trip at 25 knots. You'd need about 20 warships.
 
  • #116
russ_watters said:
60 hour trip at 25 knots. You'd need about 20 warships.

That's assuming merchant ships will be able to keep that speed. I strongly doubt. From what I was told about 10 years ago by my uncle (who spent 40 years as a mechanical officer - or whatever it is called - on many ships) small cargo ships go at around 12 knots at best.
 
  • #117
Small cargo ships, yes - we would only be able to protect the big ones this way. The speed of a ship is a function of its size, which means that you're actually pushing the capabilities of the escort ships!
 
  • #118
russ_watters said:
Small cargo ships, yes - we would only be able to protect the big ones this way. The speed of a ship is a function of its size, which means that you're actually pushing the capabilities of the escort ships!

Something like speed in knots = 1.4 x the square root of the waterline length of boat in feet?

I think we are far from that. They are just underpowered (partially by design, partially because of the engine wear).
 
  • #119
If they would run in convoys several naval ships could protect a significant number of cargo vessels.

It worked during WWII.
 
Last edited:
  • #120
Last edited:
  • #122
russ_watters said:
I read today that they only have about 20 tankers a day passing through the area. If other merchant ships are more than that, perhaps there are a total of 50 major merchant ships a day. It seems to me the answer would then be to organize convoys. Every 6 hours you get 12-14 ships together with a frigate to escort them through the region. It's about 1500 miles, or a 60 hour trip at 25 knots. You'd need about 20 warships.

That would certainly put a damper on the piracy of tankers. Then the pirates would start looking for other kinds of targets, no?
 
  • #123
Proton Soup said:
i didn't need a subscription. good article.

Thanks for the link. That certainly coincides with my ideas about how to handle things. The longer the situation is allowed to fester the greater will be the ultimate toll in putting it down. The more ransoms that are paid, the more weapons they can buy and the greater favor they can curry with the more innocent Somalis living in desperate poverty.

The root cause is poverty and a country that has basically ceased to function. But rehabilitating that under the threat of such barbarism should give pause as being in a sense another means of extortion that cannot be tolerated. The only reasonable way forward then is to put it down harshly and make it an unacceptable way for Somalia to consider making progress.

The pirates are enemies of all civilization and until the Somalis come to believe that too, then there seems little choice but to simply make it a shoot on sight free fire zone along the Somali coast.
 
  • #125
I agree with LowlyPion. The pirates will keep doing what they're doing until someone gets rid of them.

This certainly is not achieved by releasing the pirates back to their country of origin after they are captured. As it was mentioned earlier, convoys are the best way to protect the ships. Safety in numbers.
 
  • #127
mgb_phys said:
Oops http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7749245.stm

Not judging whether it was a trawler or pirate ship, that's the most logical line of defence and of making things more difficult to deal with - hide pirates behind civilians.
 
  • #128
It's an unfortunate outcome, but war is not a nice circumstance. If there is any blame it is the pirates. The trawler is from a part of the world that has centuries old piracy problems of its own along the Malacca Straits that has festered as well.

Now that the pirates threaten the oil supply lines to the western developed countries they should expect to be seeing greater action against them. Where once Somalia problems were of little interest because ... well why not just let them kill each other and starve to death - humanitarianism cost too much, if they don't have any oil to interest us.

I guess things have changed.
 
  • #130
What's that old Somali saying?

Teach a man to jack a fishing boat and he can feed his family. Teach him to jack a supertanker and he can retire to villa in the Mediterranean?
 
  • #131
LowlyPion said:
What's that old Somali saying?

Teach a man to jack a fishing boat and he can feed his family. Teach him to jack a supertanker and he can retire to villa in the Mediterranean?

He would retire to his beachside property in Somalia, but unfortunately a bunch of pirates took it over.
 
  • #132
Aren't pirates supposed to bury their treasure under the sand on a desert island?
If you steal a million barrels of oil - doesn't this get a bit recursive?
 
  • #133
No, because now the oil is in barrels. In 20 years they come back and dig it up, and it's ready to sell for 150 bucks a pop. No overhead
 
  • #134
This just in. The pirates made off with the loot, capsized, and drown!

AHHAHAAHAHa...
 
  • #137
oh, the ironies

life-jackets.jpg
 
  • #138
Again, although this tanker is much smaller:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090326/ap_on_re_af/piracy
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #139
Let the super tankers crews get licenses to kill pirates.

THAT will put a quick end to the endemic piracy off the Horn of Africa.
 
  • #140
arildno said:
Let the super tankers crews get licenses to kill pirates.

THAT will put a quick end to the endemic piracy off the Horn of Africa.
You don't need a license to kill pirates, you only need a gun. But that's not as straightforward a solution as you think: it is expensive to hire a security crew for a ship and there is no guarantee that it'll work. I'm not sure if a tanker hull will stop an ak-47 round, but I'm certain it won't stop an RPG.
 
  • #141
russ_watters said:
You don't need a license to kill pirates, you only need a gun. But that's not as straightforward a solution as you think: it is expensive to hire a security crew for a ship and there is no guarantee that it'll work. I'm not sure if a tanker hull will stop an ak-47 round, but I'm certain it won't stop an RPG.

It's insurance. How much are you willing to pay to keep your stuff secure vs how much you could lose.

A typical hull will stop a 7.62x39mm AK round but not an RPG. But the pirates aren't trying to sink the ship, just rip-off/ransom the contents.

I suppose if you had one person on 4 corners of the ship with a large caliber distance weapon, rotated out every 12hrs you could get away with an eight man security crew @ 200-250k/yr per person (maybe a bit less if you hire locals to the area). That would include salary/meals/weapons/training. I mean, they wouldn't be Special Forces or anything, just gun hands. So the expenditure would be 1.6-2m/yr per tanker that transports thru that area. Leverage that against the loss if you have to pay it out in ransom, loss of shipping schedules & crew members lives. I'm sure someone is trying to make a biz out of it.
 
  • #142
We have discussed these things earlier in the thread. Such approach was valid before pirates invested in some higher calibre guns. At the moment their equipement (in terms of fire power) is just too good.
 
  • #143
drankin said:
A typical hull will stop a 7.62x39mm AK round but not an RPG. But the pirates aren't trying to sink the ship, just rip-off/ransom the contents.

If I were a pirate and the ships started getting uppity by firing live rounds, maybe putting a couple ships to the bottom would be an object lesson in showing them it pays to be meek? It is a business after all.

Though sinking a ship is not necessarily so easy. Unless it's a tanker that can spill liquids into the sea, holes above the water line won't necessarily cause critical damage. Though one can imagine that they could easily enough acquire arms that could cause greater damage than an RPG.
 
  • #144
LowlyPion said:
If I were a pirate and the ships started getting uppity by firing live rounds, maybe putting a couple ships to the bottom would be an object lesson in showing them it pays to be meek? It is a business after all.

Though sinking a ship is not necessarily so easy. Unless it's a tanker that can spill liquids into the sea, holes above the water line won't necessarily cause critical damage. Though one can imagine that they could easily enough acquire arms that could cause greater damage than an RPG.

The tactical advantage is the tanker. They have a relatively stationary platform to shoot a large caliber weapon from with better accuracy and range. The RPG has an accuracy range of 300 meters and from a moving boat makes it tougher though their target is large. I don't believe the pirates are interested in gun battles though. They are looking for easy pickings. A tanker firing at them, I would think, would cause them to consider a different target. Speculating, of course.
 
  • #145
drankin said:
A typical hull will stop a 7.62x39mm AK round but not an RPG. But the pirates aren't trying to sink the ship, just rip-off/ransom the contents.
True, but if you sink one, the next might be more inclined to stop.
 
  • #146
The next one ?

http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/africa/04/08/ship.hijacked/index.html

(CNN) -- Pirates near Somalia's coastline attacked a cargo ship Wednesday with a crew of at least 20 U.S. nationals aboard, according to the company that owns the vessel.

Maersk Line Ltd issued a statement saying it believes the U.S.-flagged Maersk Alabama was hijacked. If so, it would be the sixth hijacking over the past week in the region.
...

Is sailing wide of the area is not an option?
 
  • #147
Alfi said:
The next one ?

http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/africa/04/08/ship.hijacked/index.html

(CNN) -- Pirates near Somalia's coastline attacked a cargo ship Wednesday with a crew of at least 20 U.S. nationals aboard, according to the company that owns the vessel.

Maersk Line Ltd issued a statement saying it believes the U.S.-flagged Maersk Alabama was hijacked. If so, it would be the sixth hijacking over the past week in the region.
...

Is sailing wide of the area is not an option?
It is an expensive option
 
  • #148
Alfi said:
Is sailing wide of the area is not an option?

From the CNN article:
CNN said:
Pirates boarded the container vessel at 7:30 a.m. Wednesday, about 350 miles off Somalia's coast.
That sounds like about as wide a berth as they can possibly give the Somali coast without actually going around Africa. Virtually all ocean traffic to Asia from Europe and the Eastern seaboard (US and Canada) must take the Mediterranean route.

http://www.wilhelmsen.com/services/shipping/PublishingImages/Shipping_routes.gif

That involves going through the Gulf of Aden. That necessarily means that you are putting yourself within 200 miles of the Somali coast, which is what makes piracy in these waters so lucrative (probably more so than in the Malacca straits).

yemen-map.jpg
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #149
This ship had a highly trained crew according to the evening news. Now if they only had a few shoulder launched missiles there would have been no boarding of that ship.

A close up fire fight seems to be the thing the ship owners fear the most. A ships crew using stand off weapons will avoid that. If this keeps up the pirates will be the ones with the shoulder fired missiles if the don't already.

Why don't the ships travel closer together convoy style?? Navy protection would be much easier. The faster naval ships would be more effective.

Where and how are the pirates getting the location of the ships. I doubt that they are just sitting out there 350 miles from shore in hopes that a ship may come by. I have a gut feeling that they have bought a lot of radio equipment.

Ships constantly broadcast their exact location. Perhaps that information should be encoded.

Obviously doing the same old same old isn't accomplishing anything.
 
  • #150
edward said:
...Where and how are the pirates getting the location of the ships.
standard marine Radar no doubt
http://www.defender.com/radar.html

Edit: oh, and a Radar detector might do a pretty location job good job on the passing ships Radar.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Similar threads

News President Obama Seeks Executive Order to Undermine Citizens United Case
Replies
44
Views
8K
News Did Somali Pirates Mistake a French Navy Flagship for a Cargo Ship?
Replies
18
Views
4K
News What's the Latest on the George Tiller Killing?
Replies
19
Views
4K
The Last Chinese Eunuch: An Interesting Story
Replies
5
Views
6K
Train Crash Kills 25 in LA: A Tragic Story
Replies
14
Views
2K
What students know: School is all about signaling (sad)
Replies
27
Views
3K
News Freedom of speech under attack in SK?
Replies
5
Views
3K
News Does 'pack journalism' shape the science news we read?
Replies
15
Views
3K
News RIP Andy Griffith (June 1, 1926 – July 3, 2012)
Replies
12
Views
3K
News Race War in America: LA's Compton at the Forefront
Replies
30
Views
7K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top