News Somali Pirates seize super tanker

[talk2glenn]

If it's about money, I'd rather see the Navy deployed to an area like this than spread out doing sweet f-a elsewhere.

Actually, the US and EU have deployed an entire fleet. It's hard to find good info, but a google search will turn up the occasional article. Famously, the USS Ashland recently returned to home port with a pirate prisoner, ostensibly to be tried in federal court, but the judicial branch is having a hell of a time figuring out how to apply statutes that haven't been used in 200 years.

http://www.euronews.net/2008/12/23/german-navy-joins-anti-pirate-fleet/

http://hamptonroads.com/2010/11/federal-courts-norfolk-wrestle-over-definition-piracy?cid=mc

Like any modern multi-national military venture, the joint US/EU fleet its mostly symbolic and paralyzed by bureaucratic inefficiency. At the end of the day, if you're expecting them to start sinking Somali skiffs unilaterally, you're expecting too much. But they at least make some effort.

 

[Argentum Vulpes]

Well first we'd need to get us some battleships, but beyond that, I don't know. I certainly think we could at least send a few smaller warships and blow a few out of the water (pirates still aboard).

The US navy technically doesn't have any battleships (Iowa class). However of the four Iowas built two (BB-61, BB-63) could be reactivated by Pub.L. 109-163, of the National Defense Authorization Act 2006.

And yes there are several smaller hulls that would be an effective deterrent, or think bigger and send a carrier group.

 

[mheslep]

Actually, the US and EU have deployed an entire fleet. ...

A task force, maybe. The entire US http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Fifth_Fleet" will hardly have have abandoned its job of patrolling the Persian Gulf and Red Sea all for Somali pirates.

 

[zomgwtf]

A task force, maybe. The entire US http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Fifth_Fleet" will hardly have have abandoned its job of patrolling the Persian Gulf and Red Sea all for Somali pirates.

Yeah from the wiki page it states combined task force 151 is responsible for Somali pirates

 

[zomgwtf]

We have to look at why the pirating is such an issue. In my mind it seems simple: A non-effective govn't. The Somali govn't would quickly be toppled if joint forces were not there protecting their asses. Since there is NO effective govn't in Somlia it's automatically a haven for crime.

An international ground force, spreading further than just African forces, needs to be deployed to Somalia and fight to regain control OR all forces should be pulled out and let the rebels take over and form a new govn't. An effective govn't will be needed and forces will need to fight on the ground in Somalia in order to stop the piracy occurring. Patrolling the waters clearly will not work.

Of course the nations with the most powerful militaries in the world (i.e. NATO) are scared due to the lessons learned during the first time American forces were in Somalia (specifically Battle of Mogadishu). I believe last year even Russia called for a ground force to attack Somalia in order to stem piracy and help the nation.

 

[JaredJames]

An international ground force, spreading further than just African forces, needs to be deployed to Somalia and fight to regain control OR all forces should be pulled out and let the rebels take over and form a new govn't. An effective govn't will be needed and forces will need to fight on the ground in Somalia in order to stop the piracy occurring. Patrolling the waters clearly will not work.

But if you show you won't tolerate pirates by putting marines on ships or using the Navy to escort them through the canal, it would certainly stem the flow.

Blow them out of the water and see how long they continue trying to hijack ships.

Looking at it, I'd say they know full well other countries are reluctant to act and that they use this to their advantage.

 

[zomgwtf]

But if you show you won't tolerate pirates by putting marines on ships or using the Navy to escort them through the canal, it would certainly stem the flow.

Blow them out of the water and see how long they continue trying to hijack ships.

Looking at it, I'd say they know full well other countries are reluctant to act and that they use this to their advantage.

It's not so easy, Americans are already not particularly liked in this part of the world. Imagine they started shooting boats outta the water. Since al Qaeda operates in the area it's kinda important to not unnecessarily piss them off too much.

The reason I say it's not that easy is because these pirates consider themselves somewhat of a 'protective' force for the Somalians... The amount of money they take in ransoms is miniscule to how much fish they lose. I've read numbers at a few hundred million dollars. I'm not entirely sure how the Somali public looks at the pirating but I'm extremely doubtful they'd be happy to hear that American forces are shooting Somali ships out of the water... especially when they consider themselves to be doing a good thing.

A ground force to help the govn't get back control would in my mind be viewed differently, but it has to be done properly as in Iraq or Afghanistan. (regardless of what people say the support for American forces in these nations has increased and is quite high according to polls)

 

[JaredJames]

What the people perceive as a good thing is irrelevant. These people are hijacking a boat and using threats to force money out of people/companies.

I don't care if Americans or any country isn't liked that much. It doesn't give them the right to commit these acts.

The fact that we aren't defending our ships says exactly how much we value them. It won't be until costs increase due to the ships taking alternate routes or the companies stop shipping to us that anything will be done. This is the sad reality of it. Until a ship is attacked and sank, very little will be done.

 

[zomgwtf]

What the people perceive as a good thing is irrelevant. These people are hijacking a boat and using threats to force money out of people/companies.

I don't care if Americans or any country isn't liked that much. It doesn't give them the right to commit these acts.

The fact that we aren't defending our ships says exactly how much we value them. It won't be until costs increase due to the ships taking alternate routes or the companies stop shipping to us that anything will be done. This is the sad reality of it. Until a ship is attacked and sank, very little will be done.

Well thankfully there are people in the world who care about harming other nations and maintaining good relations.

 

[JaredJames]

Well thankfully there are people in the world who care about harming other nations and maintaining good relations.

Ah so we allow them to continue in order to maintain good relations? Right with you. Another example of how violent behaviour gets your own way.

Good relations go out of the window when they attack our (or our partners) ships. They've already destroyed any relations we had.

Harming other nations? So far the only ones being harmed by piracy are us. By paying these ransoms. It's about time the governments said "no more" and actually did something for once.
Years ago they would have deployed the navy and wiped them off the face of the Earth. Now we roll over and give in far too easy.

Yeah it sounds harsh, but if it's the only language these people understand then so be it.

 

[WhoWee]

It's not so easy, Americans are already not particularly liked in this part of the world. Imagine they started shooting boats outta the water. Since al Qaeda operates in the area it's kinda important to not unnecessarily piss them off too much.

The reason I say it's not that easy is because these pirates consider themselves somewhat of a 'protective' force for the Somalians... The amount of money they take in ransoms is miniscule to how much fish they lose. I've read numbers at a few hundred million dollars. I'm not entirely sure how the Somali public looks at the pirating but I'm extremely doubtful they'd be happy to hear that American forces are shooting Somali ships out of the water... especially when they consider themselves to be doing a good thing.

A ground force to help the govn't get back control would in my mind be viewed differently, but it has to be done properly as in Iraq or Afghanistan. (regardless of what people say the support for American forces in these nations has increased and is quite high according to polls)

I think the Somalians should be compensated for their efforts. The oil rich countries exporting oil should provide food and shelter to their neighbors. On the other hand, thieves in open waters should be shot dead - give the boats to the fishermen so they can feed their families.

 

[zomgwtf]

You guys are making it sound much, much more easier than it actually is.

The situation in Somalia is not going to be solved by giving some money from oil and the illegal fishing in their waters is not going to stop if you give the fishermen some boats. I agree that we should just kill these pirates on the spot but I don't think this will
a)Deterr any future pirates
or
b)Continue to have a 'useful relationship' with Somalia.

Piracy is not harming any nation at all really. They make a few million big deal it's not worth turning an entire country, which is currently a democracy AGAINST the western world which may promote Islamic extremist even more.

 

[JaredJames]

The situation in Somalia is not going to be solved by giving some money from oil and the illegal fishing in their waters is not going to stop if you give the fishermen some boats. I agree that we should just kill these pirates on the spot but I don't think this will

I don't want to solve the situation in Somalia. I want to protect our ships against these pirates.

a)Deterr any future pirates

If there was an active, and effective presence they'd either have to improve their tactics (beyond that of the Navies), continue trying under current tactics and die or simply give up.

b)Continue to have a 'useful relationship' with Somalia.

Why? Do we have a 'useful relationship' with them already? Or are we so scared they might retaliate it's best to just let them keep ripping us off?
Once again, it is clear that the threat of violence and the knowledge we won't retaliate that is spurring this on.

Piracy is not harming any nation at all really.

It is harming, or are you going to ignore the effects of it on the captured crews? The insurance costs to companies?

 

[zomgwtf]

I'd have to see the figures but for some reason I'm guessing that having a constant patrol (larger and more frequent than already) which is actively fighting against the pirates will cost a lot more than what is lots by insurance and ransom.

I guess I should have said 'building a useful relationship' and yeah I assume that some countries would want to maintain that since Somalia possibly has oil? Who said about retaliating? That is possibly part of the worry but hardly the largest.

 

[turbo]

We don't need to throw destroyers or frigates at that problem. What's wrong with deploying smaller armed ships designed for coastal patrol/drug interdiction, etc? They are cheaper to deploy, and are often quite fast. Certainly, they are capable of taking out skiffs and fishing boats manned by armed pirates. Piracy is not new, nor do we need exotic methods to combat it. People who stand to make a great deal of money will try to make the problem appear more complex and intractable than it really is, but low-tech patrol boats can provide escort services and prevent piracy.

 

[zomgwtf]

turbo, you underestimate the pirates. A small police boat or coastal patrol ship probably won't help the situation and just put lives at risk.

 

[turbo]

turbo, you underestimate the pirates. A small police boat or coastal patrol ship probably won't help the situation and just put lives at risk.

I think you overestimate the pirates. The US coast guard regularly overpowers and boards vessels without blowing them out of the water. We don't need destroyers to take on fishing vessels manned by pirates. That's like using a sledge-hammer to swat a mosquito. Just convoy the trade vessels (tankers, cargo ships, etc) and protect them with small, fast armed patrol ships.

Video the confrontations, and if one pirate in a boat aims an RPG, blow the boat out of the water, and play that video over and over again. Pirates may be desperate, but they are probably not suicidal. Right now, their occupation has a very high ratio of economic potential:personal risk. We can change that.

 

[zomgwtf]

They've shot at US Navy ships before you think a coast guard vessel will do what exactly? There's no point in risking marines/soldiers etc. in this situation. It's clear they will not stop.

As well I don't even know why it's being assumed that pirate ships AREN'T shot, they are shot and they do sink. Pirates are captured on the regular... I fail to see how this is deterring anyone.

 

[zomgwtf]

I suppose you mean propaganda such as this:

Let's just drop it on them from helicopters cause clearly they missed before.

 

[CRGreathouse]

turbo, you underestimate the pirates.

I agree with turbo -- you seem to overestimate the pirates.

 

[zomgwtf]

I agree with turbo -- you seem to overestimate the pirates.

So I suppose they'll dock somewhere and then just go out to sea do their guard duty and they go back to dock? It's highly inefficient ontop of risking lives due to there not being adequate protection.

 

[JaredJames]

So I suppose they'll dock somewhere and then just go out to sea do their guard duty and they go back to dock? It's highly inefficient ontop of risking lives due to there not being adequate protection.

What's wrong with having two larger ships either side of the water way, with a number of smaller vessels running escort missions between them?

Are you honestly saying that a bunch of pirates in fishing boats can out match trained marines on a lightly armoured, armed boat?

Remember, if they attack the marines or the larger ships, the maines can call for some backup. Get a chopper/fighter on site asap to provide some backup.

If the pirates know that there are armed escorts with the larger ships and they have backup such as fighters and gunships in the air, are they really going to consider attacking that boat?

The way you're describing these pirates is like something out of Pirates of the Caribbean. They're not that amazing fighters, they're not fantastically trained (if at all), they're just regular people who've got their hands on some guns and are trying to hijack ships.

 

[turbo]

The way you're describing these pirates is like something out of Pirates of the Caribbean. They're not that amazing fighters, they're not fantastically trained (if at all), they're just regular people who've got their hands on some guns and are trying to hijack ships.

Thank you. Somali pirates are not ninja masters. They are thugs with small arms who have developed a cottage industry in theft, abduction, and ransom. They can be stopped without a lot of trouble.

 

[Vanadium 50]

Just convoy the trade vessels (tankers, cargo ships, etc) and protect them with small, fast armed patrol ships.

And where exactly will these patrol boats be based? An Island-class cutter has a range of 1900 miles and an endurance of 6 days. Ignoring the issue of having enough fuel for a mission, rather than going on station and immediately turning back home, your choices are Eritrea, Dijbouti, Yemen, and of course Somalia itself.

Frigates and larger warships are capable of much more independent operations. Even a Perry has a range of 5000 miles.

There is a more fundamental issue - the policy of most governments is that pirates should be captured and put on trials in civilian courts. This is more dangerous and expensive than simply sinking their vessels.

 

[Gokul43201]

The area to be covered is also non-trivial - a few million square miles.

http://www.maritimeterrorism.com/20...aritime-piracy-doubled-in-first-half-of-2009/

There are about 50 cargo vessels passing through the Gulf of Aden every day. Most of them going from or to different parts of Asia. They travel through the active piracy area for about 4-10 days. If each vessel has an escort for an average of 5 days, that's a total of 250 escort vessels.

 

[JaredJames]

They can be stopped without a lot of trouble.

A fact I feel every Navy out there is aware of, but powerless to do anything about thanks to the politics and red tape behind it all.

 

[JaredJames]

The area to be covered is also non-trivial - a few million square miles.

Which is why you escort the ships.

 

[Gokul43201]

Which is why you escort the ships.

Sorry, I was appending the argument for the escorts, and didn't see the follow up post. See above.

 

[russ_watters]

I have no idea who's making the decision to allow these pirates to remain active, or what criteria are used. But I'm not naive enough to think money is not a consideration.

Of course if you go high enough, eventually the cost of anything can be too much. What I really meant is is it a simple x > y calculus? That's what your post implied. Or is it worth it to spend $1 billion to avoid a $1 million ransom? Or more generally, has our government decided not to do much of anything about it because of the money or is there another reason (like political concerns)?

IMO, we spend so much on our Navy that if we can't use it to engage these pirates, there is almost no point in having it (and that's really both a financial and political issue).

(also, for clarity, the ransom itself isn't the only issue. It inceases the cost of shipping, both in the obvious ways of causing shippers to charge more, use more fuel and time going around Somalia, and less obvious such as increasing insurance costs.)

In an ideal world? No, but see above about naivete.

Well how about in the real world? We're not talking about a theoretically infinite cost. If we could do it for, say, $10 billion a year, do you think it is worth doing?

I do.

 

[russ_watters]

Actually, the US and EU have deployed an entire fleet.

Two destroyers and a supply ship isn't much of a "fleet".

It would take probably two or three dozen warships to fix the problem.

At the end of the day, if you're expecting them to start sinking Somali skiffs unilaterally, you're expecting too much. But they at least make some effort.

I may be asking for something I'm not going to get, but I'm not expecting it...and that doesn't mean it isn't worth wishing for it.

 

[russ_watters]

b)Continue to have a 'useful relationship' with Somalia.

Somalia doesn't have a government, so not only do we not hav ea "useful relationship" with it, there is no "useful relationship" possible.

 

[russ_watters]

We don't need to throw destroyers or frigates at that problem. What's wrong with deploying smaller armed ships designed for coastal patrol/drug interdiction, etc? They are cheaper to deploy, and are often quite fast.

1. It is illegal to use the Coast Guard for such purposes.
2. The Coast Guard doesn't have anywhere near enough of that kind of ship to do the job...unless perhaps you actually dedicated the entire Coast Guard to the task.

Frigates are absolutely the most appropriate ship for this task. They have a missile launcher, a 3" gun and .50 cal machine guns...and a helicopter pad/hanger.

We don't need to throw destroyers or frigates at that problem. What's wrong with deploying smaller armed ships designed for coastal patrol/drug interdiction, etc? They are cheaper to deploy, and are often quite fast.

Much, if not most, of our open-water drug interdiction is done by the Navy or the USCG "borrowing" Navy ships. When I was a mid, I participated in a counter-drug op off the coast of Equador that used a frigate and a cruiser. A small detachment of coasties took over our ship and ran the boarding party for legal reasons, during the interdiction...but that's not the appropriate tactic for dealing with piracy. You don't deal with pirates by boarding them and arresting them, you deal with them by sinking their ships.

 

[russ_watters]

Thank you. Somali pirates are not ninja masters. They are thugs with small arms who have developed a cottage industry in theft, abduction, and ransom. They can be stopped without a lot of trouble.

Jardenjames wasn't exactly agreeing with you: a "fighter" implies an aircraft carrier and an attack helicopter requires that or the USMC equivalent. That's not the Coast Guard.

 

[russ_watters]

And where exactly will these patrol boats be based? An Island-class cutter has a range of 1900 miles and an endurance of 6 days. Ignoring the issue of having enough fuel for a mission, rather than going on station and immediately turning back home, your choices are Eritrea, Dijbouti, Yemen, and of course Somalia itself.

Frigates and larger warships are capable of much more independent operations. Even a Perry has a range of 5000 miles.

They can, of course, be re-supplied (which is how a Perry can sail as far as it wants), but captains never run their ships below about half full of fuel, so realistically, they'd need to resupply at least twice a week. Either way, your point is correct: a Coast Guard cutter isn't designed for anything more than perhaps a little operation in the Carribean.

There is a more fundamental issue - the policy of most governments is that pirates should be captured and put on trials in civilian courts. This is more dangerous and expensive than simply sinking their vessels.

Yes, that's the bigger issue. We've already been in plenty of situations where the traditional laws of the sea would call for the sinking of the pirate ships (they occasionally accidentally attack military ships). But we've gone so soft in wanting everything to be a police action/job for the courts, we've handcuffed ourselves. The way the situationbeing handled (with nation-less unlawful combatants) is currently unworkable, as the continued existence of the Guantanamo Bay facility demonstrates.

 

[russ_watters]

The area to be covered is also non-trivial - a few million square miles.

http://www.maritimeterrorism.com/20...aritime-piracy-doubled-in-first-half-of-2009/

There are about 50 cargo vessels passing through the Gulf of Aden every day. Most of them going from or to different parts of Asia. They travel through the active piracy area for about 4-10 days. If each vessel has an escort for an average of 5 days, that's a total of 250 escort vessels.

Individual escorts are not the way to do it - you'd end up bunching up a lot. The lineal distance of coastline is about 2,000 miles. A picket-fence of 36 ships could have a spacing of 55 miles, which means a radar coverage radius of only 28 miles and an hours' travel distance to the edge of each ship's immediate area of responsibility. That's a piece of cake for a Frigate.

Plus, you could use some statistical analysis to optimize the coverage. Fom the map, you need heavier coverage in the gulf of Aden and the southern end of Somalia.

 

[russ_watters]

We're not talking about a theoretically infinite cost. If we could do it for, say, $10 billion a year, do you think it is worth doing?

Googling for "frigate operating cost" brings up the wiki for the British type 23: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_23_frigate

It's a little smaller than an OHP and cost 10.3 million pounds to operate in 2003. Assuming the average frigate deployed costs $20 million US, 36 would cost $720 million a year. Add another dozen support ships at a similar cost (not sure if they should be counted separately or not...) and that's another $240 or just short of $1 billion.

There's a great big caveat to this, of course: we already operate these ships, so it is likely that the delta between having them deployed and doing nothing and having them deployed to Somalia would only be a fraction of that.

I think we should do it.

[edit:] Here's a link that says an OHP cost $16 M in 1996, so they probably cost more like $25 M in today's dollars, but still, when you mix them with smaller frigates from other countries, $20M overall is probably not too far off the mark. http://www.fas.org/programs/ssp/man/uswpns/navy/surfacewarfare/FFG7_oliverhazardperry.html

 

[talk2glenn]

Two destroyers and a supply ship isn't much of a "fleet".

It would take probably two or three dozen warships to fix the problem. I may be asking for something I'm not going to get, but I'm not expecting it...and that doesn't mean it isn't worth wishing for it.

2 or 3 dozen warships? You want the entire Pacific fleet re-deployed off the coast of Somalia?

This is irrational.

That's approximately the firepower you'd need to invade North Korea. These are skiffs - a handful of Somalis with small arms aboard outboard motor boats.

 

[zomgwtf]

russ many of the points you've raised I agree with 100%. Except for the government part, Somalia certainly does have a govn't as ineffective as it is. The rebels never overthrew the govn't in the most recent invasion/attacks and the African joint forces is making sure that doesn't happen.

Also when I said a useful relationship I meant with the nation not the government. The govn't is only a small part of the nation, the most important part is the people.

All other points raised by turbo and jared have been sufficiently addressed. I was going to type up a responses to everything but started watching Easy A. Good movie.

 

[JaredJames]

All other points raised by turbo and jared have been sufficiently addressed.

I disagree. So far all you've told us is that you believe the pirates should be left to hijack ships and threaten their crews / owners / governments. And that you believe there's nothing we can do about it.

 

[JaredJames]

And for the record, Somalia doesn't have a central government:

Somalia has been without an effective central government since President Siad Barre was overthrown in 1991.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/country_profiles/1072592.stm

They have too many warlords and the like trying to impose their own will and they can't get anything effective in place.

As can be seen in the report, they have tried many times (and still are) but so far haven't been very effective in bring control. There is still a lot of clan fighting making progress very difficult.

In every attack so far, the government they are trying to put in place is losing badly.

 

[zomgwtf]

Just because they do not have an effective govn't does not mean they don't have a govn't. If you read what I said I specifically said it was ineffective.

Secondly please don't troll and put words in my mouth. That's just retarded.

 

[JaredJames]

Just because they do not have an effective govn't does not mean they don't have a govn't. If you read what I said I specifically said it was ineffective.

Secondly please don't troll and put words in my mouth.

All I've seen so far is you telling us we can't do anything or how we shouldn't. You haven't given a valid reason to allow ships to be hijacked and crews put through the ordeal. You've just told us how we should let it happen other wise we face 'repercusions' from the somali people.

That's just retarded.

One of my pet hates is the incorrect use of 'retard'. It means slow or to slow down. So what you have just said there is "that's just slow". I don't find it insulting, however it does annoy me and I find it extremely childish when people use words linked to mental handicap conditions as insults. There's absolutely no need for it.
Yes, it's sensitive ground for me.

 

[russ_watters]

2 or 3 dozen warships? You want the entire Pacific fleet re-deployed off the coast of Somalia?

This is irrational.

That's approximately the firepower you'd need to invade North Korea. These are skiffs - a handful of Somalis with small arms aboard outboard motor boats.

Either you misunderstood or you really don't know what you're talking about. The US Navy currently has 289 ships including over 100 surface combatants (destroyers, cruisers, frigates). I'm not even suggesting we use any of the big ships - the aircraft carriers or amphibs, so it most certainly isn't "the entire Pacific fleet" that I'm suggesting we deploy for this. And I'm also assuming that our allies would at least pitch in a few ships of their own - perhaps a dozen. Frigates are something our allies have a bunch of.

We probably had more ships available in 1991 than today, but FYI, there were 42 surface combatants deployed for the Gulf war, not including the three battleships. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coalition_of_the_Gulf_War#Battleships

And we also had 6 aircraft carriers and 7 amphibious assault ships (helicopter carriers).

If we wanted to, we could deploy a fleet like I suggested without all that much trouble. I said all surface combatants, but I wouldn't be opposed to swapping out a couple for a couple of aircraft carriers or amphibs.

 

[russ_watters]

Except for the government part, Somalia certainly does have a govn't as ineffective as it is. The rebels never overthrew the govn't in the most recent invasion/attacks and the African joint forces is making sure that doesn't happen.

Hmm...looks like they did finally put something together a few years ago - I wasn't aware:

Additionally, a Transitional Federal Government was created in 2004, which saw the restoration of numerous national institutions, including the Military of Somalia. While it still has room for improvement, the interim government continues to reach out to both Somali and international stakeholders to help grow the administrative capacity of the Transitional Federal Institutions and to work toward eventual national elections in 2011.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somalia

Not much, but I suppose it is >0. According to that BBC article, though, it's the 14th attempt to create a government since the war in 1991.

Also when I said a useful relationship I meant with the nation not the government. The govn't is only a small part of the nation, the most important part is the people.

What relationship do we/can we have with the people?

 

[russ_watters]

When I was in the Navy, I participated in only one deployment. It was part of Standing Naval Forces, Atlantic, which is a permanent NATO squardron who'se primary mission, near as I can tell, is to hold receptions for mayors. And let me tell you, we had a blast. But here you have 6-10 surface combatants (usually Frigates), port hopping in North America and Europe all the time, when we could send them to do something useful like sink pirate ships.

NATO maintains standing maritime Immediate Reaction Forces in the Atlantic and the Mediterranean. NATO's Standing Naval Force Atlantic (STANAVFORLANT) is the world's first permanent peacetime multinational naval squadron. STANAVFORLANT was established in January 1968. Flying the NATO flag continuously for over 30 years, some 150,000 men and women have served aboard 600 STANAVFORLANT ships. Each year the Force steams more than 50,000 miles, participating in a series of scheduled NATO and national exercises and making goodwill visits.

Under the Supreme Allied Commander, Atlantic (SACLANT), headquartered in Norfolk, Virginia, USA, it is an immediately available reaction force which can rapidly respond to a crisis, establishing Alliance presence and resolve.

From six to ten ships (destroyers, frigates and tankers) are normally attached to the Force for up to six months, and Force command rotates on an annual basis among the nations contributing ships to STANAVFORLANT. The standing force in the Atlantic of destroyers and frigates has air defense, anti-submarine warfare, and anti-surface warfare capabilities. Canada, Germany, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom and the United States are the five permanent contributors to the standing force. In addition, STANAVFORLANT's strength can be augmented by units from Belgium, Denmark, Portugal, Norway and Spain for short periods of time. Personnel are routinely exchanged between STANAVFORLANT ships.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/agency/navy/stanavforlant.htm

 

[talk2glenn]

Either you misunderstood or you really don't know what you're talking about. The US Navy currently has 289 ships including over 100 surface combatants (destroyers, cruisers, frigates). I'm not even suggesting we use any of the big ships - the aircraft carriers or amphibs, so it most certainly isn't "the entire Pacific fleet" that I'm suggesting we deploy for this. And I'm also assuming that our allies would at least pitch in a few ships of their own - perhaps a dozen. Frigates are something our allies have a bunch of.

We probably had more ships available in 1991 than today, but FYI, there were 42 surface combatants deployed for the Gulf war, not including the three battleships. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coalition_of_the_Gulf_War#Battleships

And we also had 6 aircraft carriers and 7 amphibious assault ships (helicopter carriers).

If we wanted to, we could deploy a fleet like I suggested without all that much trouble. I said all surface combatants, but I wouldn't be opposed to swapping out a couple for a couple of aircraft carriers or amphibs.

You said "warship"; counting the total number of surface ships in the USN is a bit unfair. A warship is generally understood to be a combat vessel. Further, most of the Fleet isn't deployed at anyone time.

The Pacific fleet is the largest USN command, and is composed of the 3rd and 7th Fleets. The 7th fleet is permanently deployed to Japan, and includes 50 ships in 9 task forces. Of those, 3 are admin/logistics, and 3 are for special operations useless to sinking pirate ships (ASW, mine warfare, and landing marines). That leaves 3 forces, and about 17 ships currently forward deployed, including the subs (of tenuous utility). This assumes you move the entire Japanese and Korean fleets. The 3rd fleet currently isn't forward deployed as far as I know, giving you 0 ships to choose from.

So, the entire Pacific fleet is currently 17 combat ships, give or take. Less than 3 dozen by quite a ways.

 

[zomgwtf]

All I've seen so far is you telling us we can't do anything or how we shouldn't. You haven't given a valid reason to allow ships to be hijacked and crews put through the ordeal. You've just told us how we should let it happen other wise we face 'repercusions' from the somali people.[/quote[
No. I don't have to give valid reason to allow ships to be hijacked I just have to disagree with shooting them out of the water or trying to use coast guard like vessels in order to escort ships etc. all of which won't work IMO.

What I did say was that the situation in Somalia has to be fixed before anything can be done about the pirates. The govn't in Somalia is ineffective, it has limited power and limited territory which it can exercise that power freely.

Firstly why don't we just blow them out of the water all the time?
Well we can't just have another battle at Mogadishu situation and the western powers know this. It looks extremely bad on a country and it's not particularly good when you want to have the nation on yourside after things settle for potential trading (Somalia possibly has oil). This of course doesn't mean we DON'T shoot them out of the water because there certainly have been situations where they've been shot out of the water.

Secondly it's not worth it. The amount of ships that would be required to guard this area would need to be increased heavily and they would have to keep a constant watch. Judging by russ's numbers I do not think it's worth the 10s of millions that is lost due to the piracy. Protect the people? What people? No cruise ships or personal yaughts etc should be traveling through here really... and any businesses that want to operate through here assume the risk of being attacked by pirates. Defend themselves or pay up or don't go through. It's obviously necessary for economic reasons that they go through so that's not a 'real option' yet at least. I mean would you really send supplies or oil or w/e over land in Somalia? No? Then why do it by boat in areas you know they are? Sometimes they strike unexpectedly in different areas but I'm sure those are the exception.

Thirdly I don't see any efficient or effective way to use small boats. They amount of protection they would provide to the people on the vessel would be much to small to deal with armed pirates IMO. These people are coming at you with RPGs and assault rifles, they aren't shooting some small range pistols trying to evade being arrested, they are attacking you. (They attacked a freaking NAVY ship if you don't think they'll attack) That's of course on the side of how the heck are these ships going to patrol such a vast area and where they'll dock.

I've said all of this pretty much over the time period of my posts in one way or another. If you didn't take that in cause you're too dead-set towards shooting them outta the water that's not my problem.

So with that said I'll conclude my post by saying that we won't be able to fight piracy effectively and efficiently from the waters until we have solved the problems on the shore. Piracy starts on the shore.

One of my pet hates is the incorrect use of 'retard'. It means slow or to slow down. So what you have just said there is "that's just slow". I don't find it insulting, however it does annoy me and I find it extremely childish when people use words linked to mental handicap conditions as insults. There's absolutely no need for it.
Yes, it's sensitive ground for me.

Mental-retardation is a real term and it means you have an IQ of under 70. Retarded is just a slang/short form of that. Be sensitive to it I don't particularly care.

 

[zomgwtf]

Not much, but I suppose it is >0. According to that BBC article, though, it's the 14th attempt to create a government since the war in 1991.

This is true but their government has not been toppled in the recent attacks.

What relationship do we/can we have with the people?

We can try to remain 'friendly' and help them in their time of need. The reason why this is necessary in my mind is
a)al Qaeda operates in the region... we don't really need to be pushing more people towards extremism
and
b)most importantly... Somalia probably has oil... probs best not to piss of potential future traders?

 

[russ_watters]

You said "warship"; counting the total number of surface ships in the USN is a bit unfair. A warship is generally understood to be a combat vessel.

I was more specific: I said "surface combantants", which are destroyers, cruisers and frigates. And I said we have more than 100.

Further, most of the Fleet isn't deployed at anyone time.

Clearly, but as I showed with the Gulf War example, I'm not asking something we haven't already done.

The Pacific fleet is the largest USN command, and is composed of the 3rd and 7th Fleets. The 7th fleet is permanently deployed to Japan, and includes 50 ships in 9 task forces. Of those, 3 are admin/logistics, and 3 are for special operations useless to sinking pirate ships (ASW, mine warfare, and landing marines). That leaves 3 forces, and about 17 ships currently forward deployed, including the subs (of tenuous utility). This assumes you move the entire Japanese and Korean fleets. The 3rd fleet currently isn't forward deployed as far as I know, giving you 0 ships to choose from.

So, the entire Pacific fleet is currently 17 combat ships, give or take. Less than 3 dozen by quite a ways.

That's nonsense. Besides the fact that 3rd fleet ships are currently deployed all around the Pacific theater* (what do you think they do, run in circles off the coast of San Diego and Hawaii?), a ship does not have to be forward deployed to be forward deployed. They can sail around the world if they want. And again, we've already done much more than I suggest. You're being ridiculous and bordering on intentional misinformation.

*According to their Wiki pages, the Nimitz was deployed to the Persian Gulf earlier this year, the Lincoln is off the coast of Pakistan right now, the Stennis was in the Persian Gulf in 2009, which probably means it will be deploying again soon (or the wiki is out of date), and the same goes for the Reagan.

 

[JaredJames]

Firstly why don't we just blow them out of the water all the time?
Well we can't just have another battle at Mogadishu situation and the western powers know this. It looks extremely bad on a country and it's not particularly good when you want to have the nation on yourside after things settle for potential trading (Somalia possibly has oil). This of course doesn't mean we DON'T shoot them out of the water because there certainly have been situations where they've been shot out of the water.

Why would there be a battle? If you protect our ships adequately, there won't be anything even resembling a battle. If you make it difficult for them to get close and put a deterrent in place it will soon reduce the numbers of attempts. There'll be too much risk involved.

Secondly it's not worth it. The amount of ships that would be required to guard this area would need to be increased heavily and they would have to keep a constant watch. Judging by russ's numbers I do not think it's worth the 10s of millions that is lost due to the piracy. Protect the people? What people? No cruise ships or personal yaughts etc should be traveling through here really... and any businesses that want to operate through here assume the risk of being attacked by pirates. Defend themselves or pay up or don't go through. It's obviously necessary for economic reasons that they go through so that's not a 'real option' yet at least. I mean would you really send supplies or oil or w/e over land in Somalia? No? Then why do it by boat in areas you know they are? Sometimes they strike unexpectedly in different areas but I'm sure those are the exception.

Demands started at $2 million per ship and are now reaching around $30 million (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/7647631.stm). How long before this increases again?

Thirdly I don't see any efficient or effective way to use small boats. They amount of protection they would provide to the people on the vessel would be much to small to deal with armed pirates IMO. These people are coming at you with RPGs and assault rifles, they aren't shooting some small range pistols trying to evade being arrested, they are attacking you. (They attacked a freaking NAVY ship if you don't think they'll attack) That's of course on the side of how the heck are these ships going to patrol such a vast area and where they'll dock.

Again, you are ignoring previous suggestions from others here. Plus you are overestimating these pirates abilities. A team of trained marines escorting a ship (whether on/off board) will be a good deterrent and provide strong resistance to anyone trying to board these ships. You seem to be under the impression these pirates are well trained. There's a difference between untrained pirates firing assault rifles and a team of trained marines with rifles and some form of rocket/missile system.
I'm curious where you get your image of these pirates from? Is there a reason you feel escorting ships through in convoy wouldn't work? We've answered the 'docking' problem.

I've said all of this pretty much over the time period of my posts in one way or another. If you didn't take that in cause you're too dead-set towards shooting them outta the water that's not my problem.

Believe it or not, I don't want to shoot them out of the water, not if there was a valid alternative. I abhor killing, but I also see a situation like this where the country isn't able to deal with things and we aren't able to simply sort the country out over night (why do you think we wouldn't have another Iraq on our hands?), where direct action is required.
Solving Somalia's problems isn't an easy task and would cost far more than any Navy deployment to protect our ships. This is of course assuming that helping Somalia would actually stop piracy. If hijacking a ship gets you a few million dollars, why would you give that up?
I'm looking at it more from a 'we can deal with pirates now' point of view, it is our duty to protect our ships. I'm not "dead-set" on shooting out of the water, but they leave us no choice at present.