# Bad news - audacious open-ocean attack on transiting product tanker in Gulf of Guinea



## Geoff Gower

In the early hours of Saturday 9th August, a product tanker transiting 200 nautical miles south of the Nigerian shoreline encountered a radar contact of a drifting vessel along its track. After taking normal navigational measures to open the closest point of approach (CPA) from the drifting vessel and passing abeam at 6.5 nautical miles, the tanker’s crew heard a burst of gunfire; first from their starboard quarter when 6 or 7 shots were fired and later from forward of the ship’s accommodation structure, but this time a burst of automatic fire. Although visibility was poor in the darkness and haze, one crew member reported seeing the outboard engine wakes of up to three small craft that engaged in a chase of the tanker, during the period of gunfire.The well-prepared and well-drilled ship’s crew had taken measures to harden the vessel prior to leaving their last anchorage along the Gulf of Guinea coast. Initiation of anti-piracy drills and the retreat of the crew to the shelter of the vessel’s interior ensured that no one was injured. The pirates made an unsuccessful attempt at boarding the vessel from the stern, but eventually fell behind as the ship’s master opened the range. It would be easy to characterise this event as just another statistic in the story of Gulf of Guinea maritime crime, but to do so would be missing one very significant point – the open ocean nature of what looks like an intelligence-led operation. It is true that this is not the first time that we have seen ships targeted for their cargo or their crew and it is also true that some of these armed attempts have taken place at considerable range from shore, particularly in the case of kidnapping of crew for ransom at ranges up to 160 nautical miles off the Niger Delta.


----------



## ninabaker

Another reason why we need a decent sized navy

nina


----------



## Ron Stringer

ninabaker said:


> Another reason why we need a decent sized navy
> 
> nina


Isn't it a reason why _*Nigeria *_(and/or its neighbours) needs a better Navy? As far as I know there are few pirate attacks in UK waters, so the current size and effectiveness of our Navy would appear to be adequate.


----------



## ben27

good day geoff gower.sm.yesterday.20:40.re:audacieus open-ocean attack.#1.thank you for posting this news.you would have to congratulate the captain and crew for there well drilled responce to the attack.allmost navy like?glad there were no casuality's,regards ben27


----------



## Varley

Ron Stringer said:


> Isn't it a reason why _*Nigeria *_(and/or its neighbours) needs a better Navy? As far as I know there are few pirate attacks in UK waters, so the current size and effectiveness of our Navy would appear to be adequate.


Sorry, I'm with Nina. Between James I and George III the Corsairs raided the south coasts of Britain for slaves and booty and all points south (to Gib anyway). The lesson was finally learned that the problem must be eliminated and not managed - like a cancer - and that protecting all our trading routes is a right we expect from our rulers. Unfortunately the lesson has become unlearned.

It is perhaps no longer considered significant as the public do not rate 'us' very highly - media being one reason and the fact that most of the staff involved are no longer white and, when home, a voter. Referring to our colleagues as wogs may be disrespectful if they are not also work colleagues but not racist. Letting them take all the risks by failing to carry out this fundamental governing duty clearly is just that. I am sure Nina would not use the same vocabulary I hope she would agree with the concept.


----------



## Keltic Star

Varley said:


> Sorry, I'm with Nina. Between James I and George III the Corsairs raided the south coasts of Britain for slaves and booty and all points south (to Gib anyway). The lesson was finally learned that the problem must be eliminated and not managed - like a cancer - and that protecting all our trading routes is a right we expect from our rulers. Unfortunately the lesson has become unlearned.
> 
> It is perhaps no longer considered significant as the public do not rate 'us' very highly - media being one reason and the fact that most of the staff involved are no longer white and, when home, a voter. Referring to our colleagues as wogs may be disrespectful if they are not also work colleagues but not racist. Letting them take all the risks by failing to carry out this fundamental governing duty clearly is just that. I am sure Nina would not use the same vocabulary I hope she would agree with the concept.


Any chance you can run that by me again?


----------



## Ron Stringer

Varley said:


> Sorry, I'm with Nina. Between James I and George III the Corsairs raided the south coasts of Britain for slaves and booty and all points south (to Gib anyway). The lesson was finally learned that the problem must be eliminated and not managed - like a cancer - and that protecting all our trading routes is a right we expect from our rulers.


David you seem to overlook the fact that Britain is no longer a nation with merchant ships that need protecting. (Protecting British merchant ships has not been the prime purpose of the Royal Navy for at least the past 100 years). That news must surely have reached the Isle of Man by now.

What you refer to as "our trading routes" belong to others and we are no more responsible for policing them than are the citizens of Switzerland, Finland or Norway. The West African states are far more dependent on unhindered trade by sea off their coasts than we are and will be far more affected by any commercial pressures that might inhibit that trade.

Come independence, maybe Nina will be able to persuade Alex to send some of the Tartan Navy down to the Bight of Benin or thereabouts to keep order. (Jester)


----------



## Varley

Ron, I agree that our necessaries are largely no longer carried in British bottoms or by British souls (even here!). Yet our consumption of sea carried goods is just as great as when they were. If not more so.

The anti-piracy management techniques allowed and encouraged by our governors (and those of the poor chaps that now do the carrying) is simply a convenient excuse to let someone else take the risk for our benefit. Rather cowardly and isn't it rather uncomfortable to think that our supply lines are at risk without taking precautions - all forms of insurance require the owner to behave as the prudent uninsured. We aren't. 

What might encourage some support from the pocket conscious British public for the merchant seaman (of whatever colour and under whatever flag) is the realisation that management of the problem adds to the carriage cost and so to the price of goods. A pirate tax. Management of the problem simply entrenches this cost as a pirate tax and provides purchase for a new industry of security service providers to parasitise the industry. Once firmly attached these new and costly features will have a vested interest in there being a menace to manage and against eradication. Eradication may be expensive but only for a short time. Management is expensive and is likely to remain indefinitely.

I think that that the RN was indeed charged with protecting British supply routes (perhaps not on a day to day basis but certainly between 1914/18 and 1939/45) Perhaps this was by taking the fight to the enemy rather than simply defending convoys. Not exclusively of course, we are now told that it was RN strengths that did more to deter the Hun from invading than did the RAF and of course it provided floating firepower for the subsequent invasions. Were not troops mainly carried by the MN protected by the RN?

However the threat from the Hun is presently at a low level, the need to support our allies by seaborne invasion seem no longer pressing and we are some years away from the next Jubilee Fleet Review. That would appear to leave what is left a little spare capacity to do what the taxpayer thought he was paying his taxes for. Perhaps a little more avoidance of Victorian adventuring in the Hindu Kush might be a better target for making savings.


----------



## Varley

Keltic Star said:


> Any chance you can run that by me again?


Perhaps my articulation suffers from banging the same drum so often. Ask again if you really want to hear this opinionated sod bang on again when you have read my comment to Ron.


----------



## bfraser47

Ron Stringer said:


> Isn't it a reason why _*Nigeria *_(and/or its neighbours) needs a better Navy? As far as I know there are few pirate attacks in UK waters, so the current size and effectiveness of our Navy would appear to be adequate.


The expression "Set a thief to catch a thief" springs to mind !


----------



## jpearson

ninabaker said:


> Another reason why we need a decent sized navy
> 
> nina


And a Navy that is allowed to blow them out the water instead of pussyfooting about,almost sure it was the Korean navy who did just that.


----------



## Varley

jpearson said:


> And a Navy that is allowed to blow them out the water instead of pussyfooting about,almost sure it was the Korean navy who did just that.


Hear, very hear!


----------



## China hand

Why not say to the Nigerian admiral in charge of coastal safety: " You go fix this pirate problem-o, fifty percent dash-o, all paid in hard money in outside bank, any passport for family some small dash extra but no heavy"
Ploblem solved.
I really must suss up on my PC ness-o(Hippy)


----------



## bfraser47

China hand said:


> Why not say to the Nigerian admiral in charge of coastal safety: " You go fix this pirate problem-o, fifty percent dash-o, all paid in hard money in outside bank, any passport for family some small dash extra but no heavy"
> Ploblem solved.
> I really must suss up on my PC ness-o(Hippy)


...and on de national radio (i.e. federal radio) "A deed that must be done - to make Nigeria One...or ..." Don't sit on de fence - join de national defence"
In case I'm accused of racism....I hate everyone equally...but I do have a special place in my heart for Nigeria


----------



## jpearson

bfraser47 said:


> ...and on de national radio (i.e. federal radio) "A deed that must be done - to make Nigeria One...or ..." Don't sit on de fence - join de national defence"
> In case I'm accused of racism....I hate everyone equally...but I do have a special place in my heart for Nigeria


Always remember my first time in West Africa,it was Freetown and listening to the radio it said a man has been found murdered this morning stabbed to death,------------foul play is suspected,jeez o they cops 
were smart lol.


----------



## Keltic Star

Varley said:


> Perhaps my articulation suffers from banging the same drum so often. Ask again if you really want to hear this opinionated sod bang on again when you have read my comment to Ron.


_..........Management of the problem simply entrenches this cost as a pirate tax and provides purchase for a new industry of security service providers to parasitise the industry._

But the cost of the new service by "parasites" (a term which I assume would include equipment suppliers to the security industry), should become a user pay cost per consumer item, rather than a tax burden on the entire population of the few nations who are capable of taking up the sword. Those same nations being the most highly taxed as it is. 

Simply put, why should my taxes pay for someone in Upper Wonga Bonga to have a cheap and usually totally unnecessary consumer product.


----------



## Ron Stringer

Keltic Star said:


> Simply put, why should my taxes pay for someone in Upper Wonga Bonga to have a cheap and usually totally unnecessary consumer product.


Well if you lived in Upper Wonga Bonga (or the Isle of Man, with its reduced tax regime) you too might be in favour of letting the full-rate taxpayers of the UK pick up the tag.


----------



## Varley

Keltic Star said:


> _..........Management of the problem simply entrenches this cost as a pirate tax and provides purchase for a new industry of security service providers to parasitise the industry._
> 
> But the cost of the new service by "parasites" (a term which I assume would include equipment suppliers to the security industry), should become a user pay cost per consumer item, rather than a tax burden on the entire population of the few nations who are capable of taking up the sword. Those same nations being the most highly taxed as it is.
> 
> Simply put, why should my taxes pay for someone in Upper Wonga Bonga to have a cheap and usually totally unnecessary consumer product.


KS. Security products that are meant to counter unusual risks (i.e. ones which normal insurance excludes) I certainly consider parasitic. But in the same way as you would not leave your house unlocked or a ladder up to an open window there is a clear border. I have the usual domestic security, locks, lights etc. but do not keep a sound cannon (do/did they actually work?), fire hoses under pressure or Ex SBS staff on the flat roof to deter boarders, if needed I call the police who are provided by the state in part exchange for tax.

I took your taxation point 'as read' as it is obviously valid only if the tax taken by the state is reduced by the same amount. Do you really expect that to happen? I am not that much an optimist being sure that we will see no reduction in official tax only suffer the pirate version in addition. 

Whether our efforts should benefit Greater Wonga as well is a two level affair. When sharing a route with them it may well be more expensive not to also protect their interests. If the pirates' attention on our trade is incidental to their preying on that of Upper Wonga then countering that may also be in our best interests, did you think that maybe the Wongalese imports may also be British exports? Would I be heart-bleeding over the Wongalese? My opinion is how I see it best for our own economy, no altruism here!.

Ron, Your green light should not be all round! Anyway there is the Common Purse you know (it's not called that anymore but we are supposed to pay for those services, wanted or otherwise, that the UK insists on providing for us). I am sure there would be more willingness to do so if it were not wasted risking our young people in adventuring in the Hindu Kush, when there are more industrial ways of dealing with primitives, but were spent on protecting our mutual supply routes.


----------



## trotterdotpom

You're paying for the navy anyway, why not let them do something useful? Trouble is they have to do it with their hands tied behind their backs.

John T


----------



## jamesgpobog

Varley said:


> Hear, very hear!


Q-ships. I want Q-ships.

Basic concept. Geared freighter "handysize" . (see attached)

Superstructure is armored (sandbags/kevlar?, concealed slat armor against RPG's on superstructure)

Holds 1/3/5 are flotation, on the order of 55gal drums filled with foam. The ship is ballasted to show a load, but to a level that gives best economy and speed.

Holds 2/4 are armored and contain 2 (port/stbd) Phalanx/CIWS guns as well as ample ammo in protected magazines. The guns are mounted either on elevators or rotating tables, so as to remain hidden until needed. So each side has a fwd and an aft gun.

Cranes are armored observation/firing positions for Phalanx.

False deck cargo is carried.

The ships sail into harm's way, known pirate waters, just asking for trouble. Entrapment. Sucker the pirates in and when they take the bait, vaporize them.


----------



## Robert Hilton

Ron Stringer said:


> David you seem to overlook the fact that Britain is no longer a nation with merchant ships that need protecting.
> 
> What you refer to as "our trading routes" belong to others.
> 
> If you ever remember that Britain is an island you might write and remind your MP.


----------



## jg grant

JP #20 sounds like a pretty good plan to me mate.


----------



## Varley

Robert Hilton said:


> Ron Stringer said:
> 
> 
> 
> David you seem to overlook the fact that Britain is no longer a nation with merchant ships that need protecting.
> 
> What you refer to as "our trading routes" belong to others.
> 
> If you ever remember that Britain is an island you might write and remind your MP.
> 
> 
> 
> Surely the ownership of a route, if there could be such a thing, is vested in the populations that use that route for trade. The fact that it is foreigners who are operating the ships has no more to do with it than if your taxi happened to have Pakistani or Inuit driver.
> 
> Actually, of course, it does matter. Our governors take comfort in the knowledge that it is mainly wogs that are employed onboard therefore at risk of kidnap and worse and therefore need do nothing (except encourage owners to make their own provisions). This is certainly racial discrimination of the most selfish kind and the kind from which your taxi driver would be protected by law.
Click to expand...


----------



## Kaiser Bill

jamesgpobog said:


> Q-ships. I want Q-ships.
> 
> Basic concept. Geared freighter "handysize" . (see attached)
> 
> Superstructure is armored (sandbags/kevlar?, concealed slat armor against RPG's on superstructure)
> 
> Holds 1/3/5 are flotation, on the order of 55gal drums filled with foam. The ship is ballasted to show a load, but to a level that gives best economy and speed.
> 
> Holds 2/4 are armored and contain 2 (port/stbd) Phalanx/CIWS guns as well as ample ammo in protected magazines. The guns are mounted either on elevators or rotating tables, so as to remain hidden until needed. So each side has a fwd and an aft gun.
> 
> Cranes are armored observation/firing positions for Phalanx.
> 
> False deck cargo is carried.
> 
> The ships sail into harm's way, known pirate waters, just asking for trouble. Entrapment. Sucker the pirates in and when they take the bait, vaporize them.


 Bloody good idea jp. Let's hope sceleret doesn't see this thread or he will demand mery for this filth. (Smoke)


----------



## jamesgpobog

To expand the idea and explain reasoning...

This is all about 'entrapment', that allegedly nasty thing that cops are not supposed to do. A nice, slow, juicy, stupid ship begging to be taken.

Previous Q-ship techniques apply; repaints, profile mods etc.

Since this is fantasy, cost is also no object. I might consider an engine room refit. If diesel, whatever performance enhancement that could be designed and built (super/turbo charge?), or a refit to gas turbine motive power. Prop redesign for speed/performance rather than a cargo ship economy prop.

Guns refitted to eliminate all high maintenance electronics, manual targeting only. Gunners are 21st century digital boys....gamers who grew up with a joystick in their hands. 

Forward and aft blind spots are covered by one of these on the bow and stern...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mk_19_grenade_launcher

And we simply go in the hunt. 5 or 6 of these moving through various pirate waters around the world at random times. Boats reduced to splinters, mother ships the same treatment. No survivors. Terrorize the terrorists. Light 'em up....


----------



## NoR

Turn off the transponder and proceed incognito ?


----------



## kypros

Could not agree more wipe them out,plenty of volunteers for this job but you no what you could just be effecting there human rights according to the wimpish idiots in the UN.KYPROS


----------



## jamesgpobog

kypros said:


> Could not agree more wipe them out,plenty of volunteers for this job but you no what you could just be effecting there human rights according to the wimpish idiots in the UN.KYPROS


LOL...what could the UN do? Write an angry letter? Maybe a _*very*_ angry letter and they'd be cross with you for 2 weeks...


----------



## Varley

James, Whilst your suggestion would reduce by a few the number of pirates the nest where they are incubating would be left untouched. Pellew's longer lasting solution brought the news that piracy was very naughty indeed right to the mothering place. Of course it would have been more effective if the shot had not gone straight through the mud walls of the town but had flattened the town of Algiers as well as the harbour.

These days, recreating starshine for an instant or two over the nesting habitat would be able to flatten both the berthing and birthing facilities at the same time. Innocents would be collaterally damaged of course. But they would be someone else's innocents and therefore nowhere near as valuable as our own.


----------



## China hand

There is always the chance that politicians could be very clear about this anti vote policy, stamp their feet and go "Oooooh". Heavy stuff.(Cloud)


----------



## jamesgpobog

Varley said:


> James, Whilst your suggestion would reduce by a few the number of pirates the nest where they are incubating would be left untouched. Pellew's longer lasting solution brought the news that piracy was very naughty indeed right to the mothering place. Of course it would have been more effective if the shot had not gone straight through the mud walls of the town but had flattened the town of Algiers as well as the harbour.
> 
> These days, recreating starshine for an instant or two over the nesting habitat would be able to flatten both the berthing and birthing facilities at the same time. Innocents would be collaterally damaged of course. But they would be someone else's innocents and therefore nowhere near as valuable as our own.


Varley, I do understand, and am not unsympathetic. In war I am becoming more and more an advocate of 'total war'. My approach to the pirates though is to create a deterrent through fear, the pretty damn guaranteed vanishing of any foolish enough to try it as a profession. Starshine has the same effect but brings with it all sorts of hand wringing apoplexies and attacks of the vapors. I just think Q-ships would be lower profile...


----------



## LouisB

jamesgpobog said:


> Varley, I do understand, and am not unsympathetic. In war I am becoming more and more an advocate of 'total war'. My approach to the pirates though is to create a deterrent through fear, the pretty damn guaranteed vanishing of any foolish enough to try it as a profession. Starshine has the same effect but brings with it all sorts of hand wringing apoplexies and attacks of the vapors. I just think Q-ships would be lower profile...


As much as it go's against 'modern' thinking and sensibilities I totally agree - we have tried our hardest with other systems that are humanity based and they do not work. If somebody punches me in the head without reason, I do not then attend a course of therapy to find where I went wrong.


LouisB. (Scribe)


----------



## Mariner44

jamesgpobog said:


> Q-ships. I want Q-ships.
> 
> Basic concept. Geared freighter "handysize" . (see attached)
> 
> Superstructure is armored (sandbags/kevlar?, concealed slat armor against RPG's on superstructure)
> 
> Holds 1/3/5 are flotation, on the order of 55gal drums filled with foam. The ship is ballasted to show a load, but to a level that gives best economy and speed.
> 
> Holds 2/4 are armored and contain 2 (port/stbd) Phalanx/CIWS guns as well as ample ammo in protected magazines. The guns are mounted either on elevators or rotating tables, so as to remain hidden until needed. So each side has a fwd and an aft gun.
> 
> Cranes are armored observation/firing positions for Phalanx.
> 
> False deck cargo is carried.
> 
> The ships sail into harm's way, known pirate waters, just asking for trouble. Entrapment. Sucker the pirates in and when they take the bait, vaporize them.


This will give our parasitic human rights lawyers a field day. All their Christmasses come true!


----------



## Varley

jamesgpobog said:


> Varley, I do understand, and am not unsympathetic. In war I am becoming more and more an advocate of 'total war'. My approach to the pirates though is to create a deterrent through fear, the pretty damn guaranteed vanishing of any foolish enough to try it as a profession. Starshine has the same effect but brings with it all sorts of hand wringing apoplexies and attacks of the vapors. I just think Q-ships would be lower profile...


I see that James but unless one were to tow the excrement filled hulk to a suitable viewing place before finishing it off, along with any excrementers left aboard, how would it be a deterrent? Those to be deterred must know about the deterrent otherwise it isn't. I am not suggesting we overuse the fusion reaction - once should be enough.


----------



## jamesgpobog

Varley said:


> I see that James but unless one were to tow the excrement filled hulk to a suitable viewing place before finishing it off, along with any excrementers left aboard, *how would it be a deterrent? *Those to be deterred must know about the deterrent otherwise it isn't. I am not suggesting we overuse the fusion reaction - once should be enough.


Since this is fantasy, the deterrent is that _no one_ ever comes back. No one.


----------



## jamesgpobog

LOL...look what drove by yesterday afternoon...


----------



## Varley

Why was she on a lead?


----------



## China hand

For once (apart from cats) I disagree with Varley. The nacht und nebel approach with this s*** is better. They go out, get Q shipped, never come back. Disappearance is a potent tool. The sooner the UN declares these folks a disease, and takes steps to do the smallpox job on them, the better. Same for the subhoms called IS.


----------



## jamesgpobog

Varley said:


> Why was she on a lead?


She's outbound, no more than 5 knots, tug-as-rudder...


----------



## Varley

China hand said:


> For once (apart from cats) I disagree with Varley. The nacht und nebel approach with this s*** is better. They go out, get Q shipped, never come back. Disappearance is a potent tool. The sooner the UN declares these folks a disease, and takes steps to do the smallpox job on them, the better. Same for the subhoms called IS.


You credit them with noting them missing? I would question them missing whoever was their most recent sleeping partner.

Smallpox may not be an issue any longer but while these primitives murder the well meaning deluded who go amongst them offering vaccinations against more prevalent ailments I think we should deny them all modern medical science. Give Darwin a chance.


----------



## Samsette

Varley;158619} Give Darwin a chance.[/QUOTE said:


> I like that. You could put it to music.


----------



## Mariner44

Samsette said:


> I like that. You could put it to music.


John and Yoko beat you to it........

www.youtube.com/watch?v=RkZC7sqImaM


----------



## Hamish Mackintosh

Equip all vessels who are in danger of pirate boarding with armed drones, on release the drone could be controlled by persons elswhere, don't think it would take long for the message to get out


----------



## kewl dude

<http://www.theweek.co.uk/politics/14701/russian-navy-%E2%80%98sent-somali-pirates-their-death%E2%80%99>

http://tinyurl.com/d8rd86e

I wonder five years later how pirate's in 2015 treat Russian flag ships?

Greg Hayden


----------



## jamesgpobog

kewl dude said:


> <http://www.theweek.co.uk/politics/14701/russian-navy-%E2%80%98sent-somali-pirates-their-death%E2%80%99>
> 
> http://tinyurl.com/d8rd86e
> 
> I wonder five years later how pirate's in 2015 treat Russian flag ships?
> 
> Greg Hayden





> The Russian announcement that the men were probably dead led immediately to a tit-for-tat threat from the pirates. Somali media reported one pirate as saying: "In future, if we capture Russians they will meet the same fate as those they executed."


LOL...seems like they doubled down on stupid...


----------

