Go Back   DefenceTalk Forum - Military & Defense Forums > Global Defense & Military > Navy & Maritime

Defense News
Land, Air & Naval Forces






Military Photos
Latest Military Pictures




Defense Reports
Aerospace & Defence








Piracy Somalia

This is a discussion on Piracy Somalia within the Navy & Maritime forum, part of the Global Defense & Military category; Originally Posted by My2Cents Those would be sensitive items. You really want and need to keep the pirates guessing. Why? ...


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread
Old January 31st, 2011   #61
Defense Enthusiast
Corporal
No Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 108
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by My2Cents View Post
Those would be sensitive items. You really want and need to keep the pirates guessing.
Why?
They seem to know what they're doing.
I did qualify the question and would still like to know GDs answer.
An informative Google: "pirates and Somalia" for anyone still interested in how many nations warships can operate against pirates in not only the Somali EEZ but its territorial sea as well.
Cheers,
Mac
JoeMcFriday is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 1st, 2011   #62
Grumpy Old Man
General
gf0012-aust's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 17,943
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeMcFriday View Post
Why?
They seem to know what they're doing.
I did qualify the question and would still like to know GDs answer.
An informative Google: "pirates and Somalia" for anyone still interested in how many nations warships can operate against pirates in not only the Somali EEZ but its territorial sea as well.
Cheers,
Mac
ah, but the google search is not accurate and out of context to allow for proper analysis

the quantum of vessels available (both at task force and isolated national operational level) doesn't consider critical elements such as

which ones have organic air
which organic air is kinetic armed
which organic air can carry VBSS elements
which vessels have fast skimmers on board
range of the skimmers
range of the dismounts etc...
ROE's of the various nationals and the impact of disparate ROEs

those are things which I'd regard as opsec issues.....
________________
A corollary of Finagle's Law, similar to Occam's Razor, says:

"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity"
http://au.linkedin.com/pub/gary-fairlie/1/28a/2a2
http://cofda.wordpress.com/

gf a.k.a. ROBOPIMP T5C
gf0012-aust is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 1st, 2011   #63
Defense Enthusiast
Corporal
No Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 108
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by gf0012-aust View Post
ah, but the google search is not accurate and out of context to allow for proper analysis

the quantum of vessels available (both at task force and isolated national operational level) doesn't consider critical elements such as

which ones have organic air
which organic air is kinetic armed
which organic air can carry VBSS elements
which vessels have fast skimmers on board
range of the skimmers
range of the dismounts etc...
ROE's of the various nationals and the impact of disparate ROEs

those are things which I'd regard as opsec issues.....
GF.
My fault, crossed wires, I was short of time and didn't emphasize enough that it was the amount of "nations" whose warships could, by agreement with Somalia, operate against pirates even into Somali territorial waters that I wished to highlight. Not the number of warships or their capabilities, though I appreciate the bonus list of factors to consider.

I can only agree that "Google" has its limitations but it has its uses too at the more mundane level, especially for hints of the back-story. eg. Toxic waste, illegal fishing, banking routes, accusations and counters etc.

Cheers,
Mac
JoeMcFriday is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 1st, 2011   #64
Grumpy Old Man
General
gf0012-aust's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 17,943
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeMcFriday View Post
GF.
My fault, crossed wires, ...........

Cheers,
Mac
No probs. sorted out now.
________________
A corollary of Finagle's Law, similar to Occam's Razor, says:

"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity"
http://au.linkedin.com/pub/gary-fairlie/1/28a/2a2
http://cofda.wordpress.com/

gf a.k.a. ROBOPIMP T5C
gf0012-aust is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 1st, 2011   #65
Senior Member
Lieutenant Colonel
No Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,104
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeMcFriday View Post
My fault, crossed wires, I was short of time and didn't emphasize enough that it was the amount of "nations" whose warships could, by agreement with Somalia, operate against pirates even into Somali territorial waters that I wished to highlight. Not the number of warships or their capabilities, though I appreciate the bonus list of factors to consider.
There is a big difference between ‘how many nations warships can operate against pirates in not only the Somali EEZ but its territorial sea as well’ which you originally used and ‘the amount of "nations" whose warships could, by agreement with Somalia, operate against pirates even into Somali territorial waters’ now. The new language is the correct version.

Anyone can operate against pirates in the Somali EEZ and territorial sea if the Somali government agrees. The devil is in the details, as usual, because the Somali government lacks laws, courts, and prisons needed to try and incarcerate the pirates. So, the pirates need to be tried by the country to which the warship belongs, which is another can of worms that countries refuse to open.
My2Cents is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 1st, 2011   #66
Defense Enthusiast
Corporal
No Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 108
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by My2Cents View Post
There is a big difference between ‘how many nations warships can operate against pirates in not only the Somali EEZ but its territorial sea as well’ which you originally used and ‘the amount of "nations" whose warships could, by agreement with Somalia, operate against pirates even into Somali territorial waters’ now. The new language is the correct version.

Anyone can operate against pirates in the Somali EEZ and territorial sea if the Somali government agrees. The devil is in the details, as usual, because the Somali government lacks laws, courts, and prisons needed to try and incarcerate the pirates. So, the pirates need to be tried by the country to which the warship belongs, which is another can of worms that countries refuse to open.
When taken in the context of this passage:-
"An informative Google: "pirates and Somalia" for anyone still interested in how many nations warships can operate against pirates in not only the Somali EEZ but its territorial sea as well." and my reply to GF, both my statements are correct.

Taken out of context, any statement can be unhelpfully distorted.

Why the reference to an alcoholic []?

Cheers,
Mac
JoeMcFriday is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 1st, 2011   #67
Just Hatched
Private
No Avatar
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: poole,dorset,uk
Posts: 9
Threads:
RoE

hi again,had no reason to doubt your info joe in any way...our rules of engagement are quite simple fire when fired upon or the safety of ourselves or vessels crews personal safety is in danger. as far as another question was posed all operators in the security detail are from a military background exclusively maritime operations, also varied nationalities, the company im with ( who i think best not to name) employ mainly brits,american,south african personnel... happy to answer any further questions... i was PM'd regarding weapons, i rely on a Diemaco C8A1 carbine fitted with a knights armament RAS & elcan sight, and adapted streamlight torch, my sidearm is a walther P99AS . i find both very dependable

Last edited by greendeath539; February 1st, 2011 at 10:54 AM. Reason: private message
greendeath539 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 1st, 2011   #68
Defense Enthusiast
Corporal
No Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 108
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by greendeath539 View Post
hi again,had no reason to doubt your info joe in any way...our rules of engagement are quite simple fire when fired upon or the safety of ourselves or vessels crews personal safety is in danger. as far as another question was posed all operators in the security detail are from a military background exclusively maritime operations, also varied nationalities, the company im with ( who i think best not to name) employ mainly brits,american,south african personnel... happy to answer any further questions... i was PM'd regarding weapons, i rely on a Diemaco C8A1 carbine fitted with a knights armament RAS & eclan sight , and adapted streamlight torch, my sidearm is a walther P99 . i find both very dependable
Hi GD,
Just call me Mac mate, thanks for your reply.

Having a team of dependable pros [as opposed to thugs] makes for an easier off-watch doesn't it?

I would hope that no one would be stupid enough to ask your company or what ships you protect.

The Walther I'm personally familiar with, the rest of your kit I'm not, I feel a "Google" coming on.

May your work be boring and the money on time.

Cheers,
Mac
JoeMcFriday is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 1st, 2011   #69
Just Hatched
Private
No Avatar
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: poole,dorset,uk
Posts: 9
Threads:
thanks mac

haha me too mate, sometimes get asked some bone questions but must say level of debate on here seems quite high, well informed & lucid etc, im on rotation back to uk at the moment back out early feb .. as regards the walt just personal choice, never let me down & reliable as a wood burning stove! you cant ask for more than that , sig's seem all the rage but sticking with the P99
greendeath539 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 1st, 2011   #70
Defense Enthusiast
Sergeant
No Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 217
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeMcFriday View Post
When taken in the context of this passage:-
"An informative Google: "pirates and Somalia" for anyone still interested in how many nations warships can operate against pirates in not only the Somali EEZ but its territorial sea as well." and my reply to GF, both my statements are correct.

Taken out of context, any statement can be unhelpfully distorted.

Why the reference to an alcoholic []?

Cheers,
Mac
Hi, Mac....and I rather suspect that, what with the "legalistic" confusion surrounding this matter, My2Cents was referring to its tendency to "drive one to drink".

Thanks for your input, mate. I'll skip the booze, but I am more than happy to accept the info.
John Sansom is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 1st, 2011   #71
Defense Enthusiast
Corporal
No Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 108
Threads:
GD,
No worries, glad you're posting here, it's a good site. Good personal choice is Wally, I like wood-burning stoves too but that could be an age thing.

John,
"Thanks for your input, mate. I'll skip the booze, but I am more than happy to accept the info."

Thanks John, but the info sharing goes both ways and I too learn a lot from this site, which is why I read [and then research] much, much more than I post.

I have done for a few years now and DT never fails to pop up something of interest which enlightens me in other areas of endeavour.

I do like a beer or six but usually on Saturdays at the 19th hole, I rarely post on Saturdays!! LOL

Cheers,
Mac

Last edited by JoeMcFriday; February 1st, 2011 at 09:05 AM. Reason: Layout
JoeMcFriday is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 1st, 2011   #72
Grumpy Old Man
General
gf0012-aust's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 17,943
Threads:
Mac, the fine tuning in GD's legal options are that to stay within the definition of self defence, or defending the vessel, he cannot initiate an action. he must react to it.

there's some split second timing here, but thats the rub.

gf
________________
A corollary of Finagle's Law, similar to Occam's Razor, says:

"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity"
http://au.linkedin.com/pub/gary-fairlie/1/28a/2a2
http://cofda.wordpress.com/

gf a.k.a. ROBOPIMP T5C
gf0012-aust is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 1st, 2011   #73
Just Hatched
Private
No Avatar
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: poole,dorset,uk
Posts: 9
Threads:
gf

gf is correct ... we dont go looking for trouble but sometimes trouble comes looking for you .to further dispel any "cowboy" or thug slurs we are 100% compliant with any host countries laws regarding firearms etc,all weapons are secured and are available for inspection at anytime to ensure compliance while in port

Last edited by greendeath539; February 1st, 2011 at 02:37 PM. Reason: additional comment
greendeath539 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 1st, 2011   #74
Defense Enthusiast
Sergeant
No Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 217
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by gf0012-aust View Post
Mac, the fine tuning in GD's legal options are that to stay within the definition of self defence, or defending the vessel, he cannot initiate an action. he must react to it.

there's some split second timing here, but thats the rub.

gf
Perhaps the best approach is to make very rude gestures at a suspected pirate vessel. Mooning might work, too, as a non-violent initiator of physical aggression. If they start winging rpg's one's way, then one can react with things that go "BANG!!" in the night.

On the other hand, they may just scoot in nervous bewilderment.

Either way, things'll work out.

Last edited by John Sansom; February 1st, 2011 at 05:02 PM. Reason: Two typos
John Sansom is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 1st, 2011   #75
Defense Aficionado
Major General
No Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 2,239
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by gf0012-aust View Post
as a practical example.

indonesia and malaysia have denied the rights for any other country (except singapore which has shared responsibility) permission to go into the Straits and help pursue or police pirates. it may be an international passageway with rights of way for commercial traffic, but they have the right to deny any military vessel access if they push the point - another example would be the dardanelles.
Not sure about the legalities involved but can states which share jurisdiction over an international waterway actually 'deny' other states the right to provide security in the area? But yes, Malaysia and Indonesia have in the past been very vocal against the idea of having foreign participation to help provide security against possible pirate attacks in the Melaka Straits.

In one of the episodes of this Ross Kemp documentary there is an interview with Indonesian pirates who explain the motivation behind their profession and demonstrate how they they use a long bamboo pole to board ships.Compared to their Somali counterparts, the Indonesian pirates who operate in the Melaka Straits and in the waters surrounding Singapore, are rarely armed with anything more than machetes. There is also footage of Ross Kemp with a Malaysian MMEA team on an anti-piracy op.

YouTube - Ross Kemp In Search Of Pirates 1 (1/5)

Some articles related to the Melaka Straits and the Eyes In The Sky intiative.

http://www.defenceviewpoints.co.uk/a...alacca-straits

http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp...120&sec=nation

http://blogs.reuters.com/global/2010...alacca-strait/

http://findarticles.com/p/news-artic.../ai_n44330734/

On a side note, the captured Somalis have arrived in Malaysia.
STURM is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:47 AM.