Pirates

[Mercenary]

gf00... hey thanks for Thee Update!

I don't recall the facts about the Somali piracy incident as it was in the local paper and well let's just say it's not anywhere as detailed as the WA Post surely is. LOL

My mention of local Law Enforcement was not directed at any individual nation.

I'm well aware of the situation in Somali i.e., no government.

And yes Indonesia, and most other SE Asian nations are very corrupt, except Singapore. Even the latter are not perfect.

I agree this is not a hardware problem by itself. It never is. But possessing the right equipment for the specific role/mission can provide definite options to dealing with the problems of Piracy verses using obsolete tracking technology, slow patrol boats, no fixed-wing aircraft, etc. As is found in the Philippine's Military.

Working directing with the local population, developing their trust, learning to respect the innocent (don't assume their all pirates) and going after the real people is something that takes time and patience and the right connections and equipment. In other words Piracy isn't going away overnight just like Homelessness, Terrorism and numerous other social ills won't.

The respective governments need to tackle this in their own way (coastal & inshore waters) and yet also jointly in International waters. The Pirate Scum presently operate with near impunity that clearly needs to change. I think Singapore will be seriously dealing with Piracy in the coming years directly.

Acostic beam...aah ha. Well I was in the right ball park 'eh. LOL

Wow, those people were lucky. Anti-armor weapons verses passenger liner not a good mix.

 

[Big-E]

Mostly they carry RPGs and light machine guns, no threat to a vessle of any size.

 

[alexsa]

Mostly they carry RPGs and light machine guns, no threat to a vessle of any size.

Having served on merchant vessels I have some difficulty in accepting that RPGs abd even LMGs are not a threat to large vessels. Most merchant vessels are a single engine power plant and are single hulled in the way of the engine room. Sustained LMG fire or an RPG hit has the potential to stop the job.

Such attacks have an attendent fire risk. Many cargo vessels that catch fire don,t survive the experiance very well.

 

[Big-E]

Having served on merchant vessels I have some difficulty in accepting that RPGs abd even LMGs are not a threat to large vessels. Most merchant vessels are a single engine power plant and are single hulled in the way of the engine room. Sustained LMG fire or an RPG hit has the potential to stop the job.

Such attacks have an attendent fire risk. Many cargo vessels that catch fire don,t survive the experiance very well.

I suppose they wouldn't be firing at the hull then, b/c they couldn't penetrate that. If they fire at the superstructure I suppose a fire could be started there but they would have to get a hit on something flammable. All the engine rooms I have ever been in have a HALO fire suppression system which is pretty effective at putting them out. I guess your merchants don't have this???

 

[contedicavour]

piracy off somalia

Less than a month ago an Italian merchant vessel was approached by several fast boats with tens of guerrillas with AK47 and RPG7 and apparently even 81mm mortars. This happened in the proximity of Bosaso, the putative capital of the Puntland, a breakaway bit of Somalia. Luckily an Italian frigate was nearby and sent a couple of helos with heavy machine guns on the sides and the Somali boats retreated.
Let's hope the Somali transitional government manages one day to retake control of their coastline, since it is after all in the warlords' own interest to make international trade safer, so that they can pocket customs duties and make foreign fishermen pay for the right to fish in Somali waters.

cheers

 

[long live usa]

i once read somwere that an old man(in some sort of yacht) with a 12 gage shot gun scared of 2 boats(small ones)full of somalian bandits armed with ak-47s thats tells you somthing about modern pirates!:lol3

 

[Big-E]

i once read somwere that an old man(in some sort of yacht) with a 12 gage shot gun scared of 2 boats(small ones)full of somalian bandits armed with ak-47s thats tells you somthing about modern pirates!:lol3

I don't know if this is myth or fact but the point still remains, these men are cowards either way. I think if these merchants carried a couple of M-60s to hook up on the rails they could probably discourage these wussies.:finger

 

[gf0012-aust]

i once read somwere that an old man(in some sort of yacht) with a 12 gage shot gun scared of 2 boats(small ones)full of somalian bandits armed with ak-47s thats tells you somthing about modern pirates!:lol3

Thats few and far between. Certainly the IMB evidence shows that they are willing to kill crew to get what they want. Thats why its the bigger vessels that are preferred targets as they often carry the payroll for their crews on board.

A months wages for a typical 8,000t plus vessel is subsyantial - it will feed and sustain the typical 2 team pirate group for a year.

small boats are not seen as worthwhile targets by the main cohort of pirates - they would be attacked on an opportunity level by smaller pirate groups - but certainly not by the syndicated elements.

 

[gf0012-aust]

I think if these merchants carried a couple of M-60s to hook up on the rails they could probably discourage these wussies.:finger

The problems are significant though:

• the major insurance companies prohibit carriage of firearms - even in the past at least the purser carried a sidearm.
• each ship that sails is of a known quantity. the syndicates have port authority insiders who tell them what cargoes are being carried - and if that ship has a security detail (armed or otherwise)
• In the Straits, the pirates know where the bottlenecks occur and where the ships have to slow down for congested traffic - this is where they are most vulnerable. Pirate crews are known to have shot crew on stern watch - and they can do it from a distance as there is minimal assisted light available. They pick ships lacking rear spotlights, rear firehoses etc... as they are already informed by various insiders in some of the main ports. They pick nights where moonlight is minimal
• a lot of the non lethal weapons available are not for sale to smaller companies as they are huge security items - and thus not for sale to everybody/company. LRAD being a perfect example of this.
• Cost of security teams

One of the things that my company offered to some shipping companies was qualified security teams. These were teams who had experienced people in place, they all had done opposed boardings, they all had relevant military or para-military exp (eg ex-Royal Marines, Dutch Marines, Water Police, CoastGuard, Customs, Narcotics, Ghurkas etc....) Everybody wants to have them but they are stuck with basic issues eg:

• does insurance pick up the security tab?
• does the carrier pick up the security tab?
• does the customer (goods owner) pick up the security tab?
• does the insurance company make it a condition of carriage? - thus driving up costs of cargo across carrier and customer spectrums
• will the end-user/customer be willing to pick up the additional insurance burden?
• do security crews have to be dropped off in Int'l waters so as to not breach some countries firearms regulations?
• does a mother ship have to be employed so as to enable the above to occur with a minimum of grief? ie essentially an offshore armoury.
• practicality of above. different countries have different regs. its not viable to have an armoury in Int'l waters relevant to all bordering countries
• transit time impediments
• SecDet crew reload impediments
• rotation of SecDet crews
• absolute SecDet costs - these guys are professionals, they're not cheap and the team leaders are paid commensurately. On a large container ship that cost can be absorbed - but a fully qualified team of 5-6 people? Its still not cheap. The smaller the vessel (eg 500tonne-8000tonnes), the more likely it won't be guarded and the higher the chances that it will get targetted.
• the ugly hydra of risk/return. some owners would rather gamble

Its an ugly topic, but all 3 and 3.5 parties need to be in agreement.

 

[long live usa]

I don't know if this is myth or fact but the point still remains, these men are cowards either way. I think if these merchants carried a couple of M-60s to hook up on the rails they could probably discourage these wussies.:finger

this is no joke it was actually two yachts one old man with a 12 gage fired off 6 rounds and the other boat rammed one of the small speed boats and scared emm out of there
about the M-60s how about phaylanx CIWS:hehe as for small craft how about getting a 50 cal. rifle and blowing a couple holes right threw the hulls of those pirate craft:sniper

 

[long live usa]

Thats few and far between. Certainly the IMB evidence shows that they are willing to kill crew to get what they want. Thats why its the bigger vessels that are preferred targets as they often carry the payroll for their crews on board.

A months wages for a typical 8,000t plus vessel is subsyantial - it will feed and sustain the typical 2 team pirate group for a year.

small boats are not seen as worthwhile targets by the main cohort of pirates - they would be attacked on an opportunity level by smaller pirate groups - but certainly not by the syndicated elements.

i ounce read that 3 pirate speed boats atacked a family in the gulf of aden and killed them including a little girl the pigs stole small items and left i dont know what that family was doing in the gulf but those pirates are nothing but cowardice pigs

 

[Big-E]

this is no joke it was actually two yachts one old man with a 12 gage fired off 6 rounds and the other boat rammed one of the small speed boats and scared emm out of there
about the M-60s how about phaylanx CIWS:hehe as for small craft how about getting a 50 cal. rifle and blowing a couple holes right threw the hulls of those pirate craft:sniper

Vulcan-Phalanx on a merchant ship As cool as that would be I think we are getting a little carried away. They need something they can stow away. Having someone trained on the Barret .50cal sniper wouldn't really be effective against a fiber glass hull, it would still float. I still say having a couple M-60s that can easily be stowed would make mince-meat out of a pirate craft trying to board your ship. You might not sink them but you will kill everyone on deck, then you can turn and ram the bastards!

 

[long live usa]

Vulcan-Phalanx on a merchant ship As cool as that would be I think we are getting a little carried away. They need something they can stow away. Having someone trained on the Barret .50cal sniper wouldn't really be effective against a fiber glass hull, it would still float. I still say having a couple M-60s that can easily be stowed would make mince-meat out of a pirate craft trying to board your ship. You might not sink them but you will kill everyone on deck, then you can turn and ram the bastards!

why stop with Phalanx! how about launching a few harpoon missles right up there @ss!and while were at it how about putting on a 100mm gun and a couple of helos with rocket pods and 50.cals that would really give the bastards a scare!!!!!

 

[gf0012-aust]

Vulcan-Phalanx on a merchant ship As cool as that would be I think we are getting a little carried away. They need something they can stow away.

The problem is insurance provisions. some of the largest shipping companies in the world are not carrying as they will lose insurance. there are logistics, training, qualification, and regulation issues which make insurance companies (and the shipping carriers themselves) nervous about armed crew.

Having someone trained on the Barret .50cal sniper wouldn't really be effective against a fiber glass hull, it would still float. I still say having a couple M-60s that can easily be stowed would make mince-meat out of a pirate craft trying to board your ship. You might not sink them but you will kill everyone on deck, then you can turn and ram the bastards!

Any shot needs to be aimed at the engine, engine block or at the crew. That also requires compliance with Int'l Maritime law provisions.

If you want to comprehend the difficulty of engaging a bobbing target - let alone a bobbing target at speed - then look no further than RAMICs

There are some fundamental issues to be addressed even if weapons are allowed on board (which on 90% of properly formed companys is highly unlikely)

• ROE's
• Personnel trg issues
• liability issues
• training on zones of engagement. eg, as much as one might say "target any unauthorised vessel that closes within RPG shooting range" - then that automatically makes transit of some parts of the Malaccas impossible to manage.

Personally I think the insurance companies need to change their attitude of they're serious.

This is not only a problem relating to shooters, its a problem that extends right into regional and national govt.

 

[Big-E]

The problem is insurance provisions. some of the largest shipping companies in the world are not carrying as they will lose insurance. there are logistics, training, qualification, and regulation issues which make insurance companies (and the shipping carriers themselves) nervous about armed crew.

With the rising cost of lost shipments from piracy, I think having a few men trained in arms would lower your insurance premiums.

Any shot needs to be aimed at the engine, engine block or at the crew. That also requires compliance with Int'l Maritime law provisions.

I know the 7.62mm NATO of an M-60 can penetrate an outboard casing and will kill anything on deck. Has maritime law changed so much since WWII that you aren't allowed to arm a merchant ship?

If you want to comprehend the difficulty of engaging a bobbing target - let alone a bobbing target at speed - then look no further than RAMICs

Using a underwater Mine targeting gun system is not quite the same as hitting a surface target. Especially one that has to stop to board the vessel.

There are some fundamental issues to be addressed even if weapons are allowed on board (which on 90% of properly formed companys is highly iunlikely)

• ROE's
• Personnel trg issues
• liability issues
• training on zones of engagement. eg, as much as one might say "target any unauthorised vessel that closes within RPG shooting range" - then that automatically makes transit of some parts of the Malaccas impossible to manage.

Personally I think the insurance companies need to change their attitude of they're serious.

This is not only a problem relating to shooters, its a problem that extends right into regional and national govt.

1) I think protecting your investment would raise ROE.
2) What targeting issues are there? You get shot at and you shoot back, it's that simple.
3) The liability is minimized if you hire active duty soldiers from the corporate country to handle the weapons. If they are authorized to be there by the country then this gives them the status as military interdictor combatants.
4) Again, you don't enage until hostile intention has been declared by the opposing vessel, this isn't rocket science.

I'm sure its not as simple as I state but it should be!

 

[Whiskyjack]

I remember a news article on customs and small craft visiting NZ, part of the article was weapons that were held by customs and returned as the craft left NZ. They did in fact hold a .50 sniper rifle that came off a yacht no larger than 60ft, as well as an assualt rifle and various pistols. Would come as a nasty surprise no doubt!

 

[gf0012-aust]

With the rising cost of lost shipments from piracy, I think having a few men trained in arms would lower your insurance premiums.

there are a minority of vessels that do this - and as it is they are going to be the vessels that get left alone. The syndicated pirates intel network on the docks and in harbourmaster facilities is very very good.

I know the 7.62mm NATO of an M-60 can penetrate an outboard casing and will kill anything on deck. Has maritime law changed so much since WWII that you aren't allowed to arm a merchant ship?

blame the insurance companies - most ships would love to have an onboard lethal weapons response.

Using a underwater Mine targeting gun system is not quite the same as hitting a surface target. Especially one that has to stop to board the vessel.

the issue is stopping them at range - not when they are in shooting range. thats why some of the non lethal technology is designed to engage at "nn" feet/mtres. its also easier to shoot a submerged mine that is immobile than a fast mover under intelligent control

1) I think protecting your investment would raise ROE.

certainly there are elements within industry who never fail to point out the logic. the blame is evenly proportioned though

2) What targeting issues are there? You get shot at and you shoot back, it's that simple.

bit hard to shoot back if you're not carrying because your insurance company will knock off your liability

3) The liability is minimized if you hire active duty soldiers from the corporate country to handle the weapons. If they are authorized to be there by the country then this gives them the status as military interdictor combatants.

the problem is that this has been universally rejected and is resource intensive.

imagine embarking/disembarking and crewing 50,000 ship movements per year in the Malaccas alone. its a nightmare, eg, who pays for crewing when you're passing through 3 different countries territorial waters? The margins on freight are tight - and none of the 3 levels of responsibility of carriage and delivery want to wear the expense.

4) Again, you don't enage until hostile intention has been declared by the opposing vessel, this isn't rocket science.

hostile intent is often not made until time of board - you cannot set an exclusion zone around a non military asset. any boat has right of passage and freedom of passage in int'l waters (or national waters for that matter). In national waters you would be able to establish local waterways compliance issues - but then its a practicality issue as well.

I'm sure its not as simple as I state but it should be!

It should be simple - but it isn't

 

[gf0012-aust]

I remember a news article on customs and small craft visiting NZ, part of the article was weapons that were held by customs and returned as the craft left NZ. They did in fact hold a .50 sniper rifle that came off a yacht no larger than 60ft, as well as an assualt rifle and various pistols. Would come as a nasty surprise no doubt!

and thats a significant problem. as soon as you enter national waters you are subject to that countries common law requirements on weapons ownership and handling. even then, a high percentile of pirate seizures and attacks happen not only in national waters - but also dockside. strange but true. The IMB data is quite clear on types and numbers of events occurring.

thus, if you unload weapons in international waters, then you still have to recover them when commencing the return journey. that means that a vessel standing off as the floating dispensary could be in a holding pattern for 2-3 days whilst cargo shift is underway. its an ugly impractical solution.

quite frankly, the whole thing could be resolved if all maritime nations agreed that vessels in transit are allowed to use reasonable force () when engaged in lawful transit. that means that weapons could and should be allowed but locked in the vessel armoury when dockside.

weapons could thus be used if contained within the nominated vessel of carriage under the same provisions as bonding a declared customs area.

this would also make the insurance companies less anally retentive about onboard weapons.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Just as a side note to my prev reference to non lethal devices. This is similar to the device that my daughter uses on board a cruise liner as part of her security brief.

U.S. Army Purchases HMMWV-Mounted LRAD 500s for Select Combat Units in Iraq

By American Technology Corporation

URL of this article: http://www.defencetalk.com/news/publish/printer/printer_5817.php
Mon, 1 May 2006, 02:24

SAN DIEGO: American Technology Corporation (ATC), a leading innovator of commercial, government, and military directed sound products and solutions, announced today it has received new orders totaling over $300,000 for its proprietary Long Range Acoustic Device (LRAD) 500 from the U.S. Army's Rapid Equipping Force through ATC's reseller, ADS, Inc. The majority of the LRADs are slated for use by select combat units in Iraq protecting Army convoys.

LRAD is designed to communicate with authority and exceptionally high intelligibility in a 15-30-degree beam in excess of 500 meters, and has the capability of emitting powerful warning tones to influence behavior, gain compliance, and determine intent. LRADs are currently deployed in a variety of government, military, and commercial applications around the world, including military deployments with the U.S. Marine Corps, U.S. Army, and U.S. Navy in Operation Iraqi Freedom.

"These orders are a result of our working exclusively with the Army's Rapid Equipping Force to deploy LRAD 500 evaluation units into northern Iraq last fall," said A.J. Ballard, ATC's vice president of government and force protection systems. "These units are designed for integration with the weapon on the HMMWV turret utilizing ATC's custom HMMWV mounting system. This LRAD 500 configuration provides the operator with a critical tool to hail, notify, warn, to gain compliance, and determine intent in host nation languages before escalating to a non-lethal or lethal response against unauthorized individuals or groups approaching Army convoys on foot or in vehicles.

"Detailed reports from Iraq indicate that both the LRAD 1000 and LRAD 500 have been very effective in a host of land- and sea-based applications, including marine interdiction operations, controlling maritime vessel traffic, protecting critical oil infrastructure in the Persian Gulf, check point crowd control, internment facilities, convoy protection, and as a secondary means of long range communication. The integration of LRAD 500s onto select HMMWV's will provide a significant enhancement to the critical mission of convoy protection and, more importantly, has the potential to save lives on both sides of the device," Ballard concluded.


American Technology Corporation is shaping the future of sound through its proprietary directed sound products and technologies, which include: the award-winning HSS (HyperSonic Sound technology), LRAD (Long Range Acoustic Device) products family, NeoPlanar products family, Sound Vector technology, and others. The Company is establishing a strong portfolio of patents, trademarks, and intellectual property, including over 320 U.S. and foreign patents and pending patent applications to date.

 

[Wooki]

blame the insurance companies - most ships would love to have an onboard lethal weapons response.

Which insurance companies are we talking about?

Most Ship Owners use P&I clubs and that basically means they are in a self insured group.

For example: Exxon was in the big dog house with other Oil Transporters when the Exxon Valdiz hit a bump in the road. It placed a huge stress upon the others in the insured group to fix Exxon's stuff up.

So blaming the insurance companies is not really the way to go. If the company was serious, it has a voice with the collective and they can lobby. And it is the collective who would decide whether it is a good thing or not. It comes down to the man/woman at the top as to whether they are going to try and get it passed or not.

So my point being if someone on the boat/ship comes back to you and says "blame the insurance companies", it really means the higher ups in the company have no idea. e.g. Corporate Lawyer named Joe sitting next to CEO Jack.


cheers


w