How to stop the somalian pirate threat.

[RandomIdeas!]

It's becoming a huge problem to international trade, military resources and obviously the sailors being captured. How do we deal with this, there are thousands of small boats, tugs, in the area of piracy used for fishing as well as ones used for piracy. How do you tell the two apart, protect the ships without it costing millions upon millions.

 

[riksavage]

It's becoming a huge problem to international trade, military resources and obviously the sailors being captured. How do we deal with this, there are thousands of small boats, tugs, in the area of piracy used for fishing as well as ones used for piracy. How do you tell the two apart, protect the ships without it costing millions upon millions.

The problem is shipping companies operate on very tight budgets, personnel costs are a critical factor, hence most large modern ships have very small crews. Paying for additional trained and armed personnel who can man watches 24-7 and have the firepower to fend off a coordinated attack by armed men (RPG's RPD's AK's) is expensive and very risky. The last thing shipping companies want is a fire-fight breaking out on or near their ships, particularly those carrying dangerous or flammable materials. Many companies chose to transfer the risk to an insurance broker by investing in K&R coverage for the fleet. In the event the ship and crew are taken a K&R team with negotiate the release of ship and crew for a fee. The premiums are high, but no way near what you would have to pay for a well trained armed protective details on all your vessels transitting through the gulf.

Also companies invest in L-RADS & M-RADS, which provides an acoustic deterrent and does not require a firearms licence. The device allows the crew to communicate over long distances warning suspicious vessels to stand-off and can be ramped up to cause excruciating pain in your ears. These are non-lethal, but unfortunately can be mitigated by a good set of ear defenders. Ships also electrify their perimeter rails and fit high-power hoses to try and prevent hook-ons. Ships with higher freeboards are more difficult to attack, anything over 40 feet will require the use of a plummet or similar device because a ladder or hook-on device is simply not long enough.

Convoy systems are also in operation, ships will form-up and be escorted by one of the standing military vessels in the area.

 

[Abraxas]

The problem is shipping companies operate on very tight budgets, personnel costs are a critical factor, hence most large modern ships have very small crews. Paying for additional trained and armed personnel who can man watches 24-7 and have the firepower to fend off a coordinated attack by armed men (RPG's RPD's AK's) is expensive and very risky. The last thing shipping companies want is a fire-fight breaking out on or near their ships, particularly those carrying dangerous or flammable materials. Many companies chose to transfer the risk to an insurance broker by investing in K&R coverage for the fleet. In the event the ship and crew are taken a K&R team with negotiate the release of ship and crew for a fee. The premiums are high, but no near what you would have to pay for a well trained armed protective detail.

Plus, with armed individuals on board, the regular insurance premiums you pay already suddenly jump up with the increased risk of accidental injury or possible death. Shipping CEO's simply couldn't legitimize the cost with the relative small chance their ship would even be targeted. Beyond that, international shipping laws would require all ships with registered weapons on board to submit to inspection by that country's coast guard, which slows them down considerably... which cuts deeply into a companies revenue.

But in all honesty, pirates are surprisingly non-violent. Afterall, they need the crew alive to operate the ship and can recieve much larger bounties if they don't kill anyone, so it makes sense to not kill anyone.

Also companies invest in L-RADS & M-RADS, which provides an acoustic deterrent, which do not require a firearms licence. The devices allow the crew to communicate over long distances warning suspicious vessels to stand-off and can be ramped up to cause excruciating ear pain. These are non-lethal, and unfortunately a good set of ear defenders will mitigates their effectiveness. Ships also electrify their perimeter rails and fit high-power hoses to try and prevent hook-ons. Ships with higher freeboards are more difficult to attack, anything over 40 feet will require the use of a plummet or similar device because a ladder or hook-on device is simply not long enough.

They electrify the railings?

I heard they put grease and barbed wire around them, but how do they physically electrify the railings without essentially making the ship a ground?

The convoy system is also in operation, ships will form-up and be escorted by one of the standing military vessels in the area.

That's provided good buisness for companies that specialize in organizing these convoys.

 

[riksavage]

Plus, with armed individuals on board, the regular insurance premiums you pay already suddenly jump up with the increased risk of accidental injury or possible death. Shipping CEO's simply couldn't legitimize the cost with the relative small chance their ship would even be targeted. Beyond that, international shipping laws would require all ships with registered weapons on board to submit to inspection by that country's coast guard, which slows them down considerably... which cuts deeply into a companies revenue.

But in all honesty, pirates are surprisingly non-violent. Afterall, they need the crew alive to operate the ship and can recieve much larger bounties if they don't kill anyone, so it makes sense to not kill anyone.

They electrify the railings?

I heard they put grease and barbed wire around them, but how do they physically electrify the railings without essentially making the ship a ground?

That's provided good buisness for companies that specialize in organizing these convoys.

I understand there is a system, a bit like a fence used to control cattle, it is designed in way which stands off from the rail, but would touch any intruder attempting to scale the side of the ship. Clearly it must come with caveats as to what type of ship is suitable?

 

[JonMusser]

Helicopters

the way iwould deal with pirates in the gulf of Aden is Helicopters via american and allied Amphibious Assault ships have a marine group deploy to ships in area being chassed i would say 3 LHD placed well could take the pirates on effectively with their Helo's going on regular patrols

 

[Duffy]

Convoys so far have worked the best . Communication has also improved. I would think reaction time has also.
The mother ships are where to start. With coast gard type operations just off the coast would cut the aria needed to patrol drastically. That will still need large Numbers of smaller vessels. There must be some sort of supply line going to these mother ships. If the ships them selves come back for food and fuel? If thy do and you board a ship that has been out for six weeks and it has no fish those would be good ground to take it for awhile.
Trying to find a small ship or even several in the open ocean is no small task. Most navy's count on that simple fact.Thy have to move the fight much closer to shore but that bring its on complications of course. The number of boats will increase .

 

[turin]

It's becoming a huge problem to international trade,

The economical aspect is overblown. Actually its no problem for international trade at all, the number of ships captured, even those only attacked is not even close to one percent of the complete trade being conducted using that particular route.

What is affected greatly is our perception of safe waterways because of the extent of media coverage and the idea of free and unharmed trade. Lets face it...even in those times, when trade basically depended 100% on the freedom of the seas (because air and land transport were not existing or not relevant), piracy was taking place much more often and affected more regions.

I am not saying that we should ignore this problem. However the perception that this sort of piracy affects worldwide trade, economical growth or whatever, is extremely misleading.

As far as a solution is concerned...well, turn Somalia into a working nation state again. Its of course the most demanding and extensive task, but also the only one that will work continuously (with the introduction of coast guard operations and such). Everthing else will have no permanent effect and the costs dumped on operations already taking place drain more resources than they safe. Thats somewhat of the elephant in the room nobody likes to talk about when it comes to policy-makers.

 

[Duffy]

[



I would agree but turn Somalia into a working state again don't seem to be on any ones agenda. I would have to say the US is out after Iraq and on going Afghanistan, not to over look there is no political relations there. If anything resentment and distrust . So who will step up? I know Egypt and Saudi Arabia had relations in the not so distant past. Also China was doing oil exploration a few years back.

I also agree the media blows it out of proportion, But there is always the possibility of these morons hitting a tanker with a few RPGs .

 

[kay_man]

Wy not create a defensive / offensive perimeter around somalia so that the pirates have no axcess to deep sea or the shipping routes.
With the navies world over co-operating it should not be too difficult.
Also it would save the trouble of occupying the somalian land.

 

[Duffy]

Thats kinda what I was getting at in my first post with the small boats and the coast guard action . Thats still only a temporary fix.

Turin was right about stabilizing the state before any real long term fix is even feasible. But it will take something a lot more drastic that a few hijacked vessels to force that to happen.

 

[swerve]

Wy not create a defensive / offensive perimeter around somalia so that the pirates have no axcess to deep sea or the shipping routes.
With the navies world over co-operating it should not be too difficult.
Also it would save the trouble of occupying the somalian land.

It is too difficult. Look at the distances.

Also, remember that these pirates are difficult to distinguish from ordinary fishermen or traders. The waters around there are full of small boats plying peaceful trades. What do you propose - sinking them all? That's a cure far worse than the disease.

 

[swerve]

i would say 3 LHD placed well could take the pirates on effectively with their Helo's going on regular patrols

There are more helicopters than 3 LHDs can carry already in the area, & better spread than 3 LHDs could be.

Look at a map. The distances are greater than you think.

 

[The Swordman]

Short term and long term response

For the short term IMHO the only way to discourage piracy is strike hard where they move the captured ships. I don't mean by bombing any fisherman village but by sending in people like U.S. Navy SEAL o UK's SBS. Once the gangs know for sure that nobody will pay them any ransom there will be a decrease in such illegal operations. Problem is, there is so much poverty in that area that even risk a bullet in their heads will be an acceptable alternative in front of famine.

For the long term countries like Somalia have to be restored someway. Since the "Restore Hope" operations there is no real government at all and all the countries in the same area are getting weaker for this mess.

 

[Duffy]

The problem with counter terrorist type operations is even if your successful 99% of the time. That 1% is still very appealing to the pirates. You have to remember that life on shore is basically S@#T. The hole premise in the use of force is to make the consequences out way the prize. In Somalia the consequences that you propose are part of daily life.
In short of stabilizing the government you have to make it impossible for them to take control of ships.Which is easer said than done.
I have to agree with Turin . When and if it becomes a real problem there will be more resources available. The operations on going are a deterrent but are no solution. Helicopters in the aria do nothing more than show a presents. A simple tarp will hide the tools of there trade from the air.

 

[John Sansom]

Do we have any idea of the extent to which crews are expressing unwillingness to operate in Somali (and related) waters. There may come a tipping point here when unions, for instance, say, "Nope, no more."
Of course, there are many non-union seamen of diverse national origins out there, but they may be tempted to follow a job action lead as per the above.

And, hey, just what have the unions and other related/affected organizations been saying--and more to the point--doing about all this?

 

[Duffy]

The percentage of shipping affected is still very small.also the loss of life.If they were killing the crew or a large portion of them the union may do something. Since the owners are taking the hit, Its up to them to collectively either raise rates or refuse to ship in the aria .They would all have to agree to this of course and thats not likely. In the event of a ship and its cargo being lost and the insurance company has to cover the loss then you will see the premiums go up across the Bord.When it starts costing more people money then the bitching will start and something happen. Until then it gives all the worlds navy's a place to work together

 

[John Sansom]

Generally in agreement, Duffy. However, what shop stewards and other reps should be worrying about is increasing risk to union and association members. Should be? They probably are...and see risk assessment as a critical party of the game.

The brighter side of the coin--as you noted--is that the situation certainly does provide an opportunity for a number of the world's navies to operate together within a "real" context.

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

How to stop the somalian pirate threat?

Sort out the mess that is Somalia. Escorting ships is just treating the symptoms. It was a big mistake to back the Ethiopian intervention. There are better ways to kill a few Al Qaeda than further a decade of civil war.

 

[Duffy]

Generally in agreement, Duffy. However, what shop stewards and other reps should be worrying about is increasing risk to union and association members. Should be? They probably are...and see risk assessment as a critical party of the game.

The brighter side of the coin--as you noted--is that the situation certainly does provide an opportunity for a number of the world's navies to operate together within a "real" context.

I tend to agree, It does depend on how you look at it. I don't personally know how the Unions in that industry are structured. I do know that there has to be some acceptable risk assumed by the Business Agent and any members below them.Do to the fact that going to sea has its own dangers.Weather/Accident/and a hundred other thing that could go wrong.
If people were being harmed the Unions would have allot more support by other unions, Long shore-man,Mechanics, even none union workers and would be less likely to breach a contract.But if the employees are being paid while there being held and also for there release,Plus the likely hood of being hijacked is still no different than the likely hood of being caught in a bad storm that assumed risk is no different.
It always comes back to the percentage affected and to what existent. I hate to say it but its business. There is one thing to keep in mind. The over head involved in shipping is enormous but the labor is next to nothing.For all we know the crews sailing in the waters around Somalia could be making ten times that of crew else ware

 

[Duffy]

Sort out the mess that is Somalia. Escorting ships is just treating the symptoms. It was a big mistake to back the Ethiopian intervention. There are better ways to kill a few Al Qaeda than further a decade of civil war.

Well why don't you Aussies have at it

Us Americans like to rebuild countries we got to destroy.Theres nothing left in Somalia, Plus Obama spent all our money on General Motors and Chrysler.nfloorl: