# Piracy protection



## Split

5live at about 0850

Who would have imagined this reporter sailing westwards, south of Yemen, in a convoy of four ships and escorted by a Chinese warship?

We live in exciting times!


----------



## gdynia

It highlights the hight of piracy in those waters


----------



## DAVID ALCOCK

there has been a load of rubbish in the media lately about weapons being carried for defence including a captain being arrested for miscounting the amunition for his own ,declared, rifle.
Could anyone help with the legalities???


----------



## Satanic Mechanic

DAVID ALCOCK said:


> there has been a load of rubbish in the media lately about weapons being carried for defence including a captain being arrested for miscounting the amunition for his own ,declared, rifle.
> Could anyone help with the legalities???


Good luck with that - thats why we use convoys and not fire arms


----------



## Michal-S

Summer 2010. I transited the Gulf of Aden in convoy of 7 vessels guided by 2 Chinese Navy ships-very positive impression: easy pre-arrangement procedure, convoy organisation and communications. When one of convoyed vessels suffered engine problems one of the Navy stayed with them overnight. Unfortunately, due to monsoon season, piracy activity shifted from GoA to the Red Sea and they were waiting already in Bab-el-Mandeb Strait, just a few hours of sailing after the convoy had been dispersed. One container vessel reported attack just few hours after I passed the area (being lucky).


----------



## Essjay

Why not re-introduce the Dems Gunners. I was not around in those days, but apparently it helped...


----------



## Ray Mac

My lads on the Saga Ruby at the moment round world cruise, while in Colombo, extra security joined with rolls of barbed wire?. they are visiting Bombay and Muscat before heading for Suez.

Ray


----------



## chadburn

A convoy is only as fast as it's slowest vessel, which can give problem's in today's shipping scene when you have some vessel's on " Pre-Booked Port Time" schedule's, to get over the problem of different speed's they had fast and slow Convoy's during the War, unfortunatly there is not the amount of Armed Escort's to run the two type's of Convoy in today's problem area's. Ship's sailing as "Independent's" are prone to being attacked and the need for shipboard armed protection is still there--along with barbed wire which is still an effective deterrent.


----------



## Hugh MacLean

Essjay said:


> Why not re-introduce the Dems Gunners. I was not around in those days, but apparently it helped...


Because the DEMS organisation was there primarily to help defend our merchant shipping during WW2 and was quickly disbanded on completion. We haven't got enough sailors/marines/soldiers to do this job today. 

Regards
Hugh


----------



## DAVID ALCOCK

Im sure there are hundreds of ex army/marines etc who would love a well paid job sitting in the sun pollishing their guns and potting a few pirates ; but how legal is it??? 
There was some comment about protection being available in a limited area from a mothership but the pirates are spreading!


----------



## Varley

Sorry, but I say again. Protection of our trade routes is one of the few 'services' we expect of our rulers. Any half measure results in continous bleed of resources to counter the symptoms. Shifting the onus on to the industry simply adds to the pirate premium we all pay on almost anything on our tables and in our shops today as it will do nothing to reduce the cost of the military already paid from our taxes.

Summary:

Managing the problem=unnecessary and continuous additional expense.
Solving problem=momentary additional expense reverting to the status quo ante on completion.


----------



## Andrew Craig-Bennett

I entirely agree with Varley.

Going back to the days of arming merchant ships for their own protection is no sort of a long term answer. At the moment my company's ships are carring three ex Marines each every time they transit, but how long before the pirates escalate things further?

The safety of the high seas is in everyone's interest - pirates and slavers are hostes humanii generis - enemies of all mankind.

Effective military action to wipe them out is essential.


----------



## Union Jack

*Protection of our trade routes is one of the few 'services' we expect of our rulers*

Absolutely right Mr Varley, but sadly our present "rulers" appear to have completely forgotten the stirring words of the original Articles of War:

" It is upon the Navy that under the good providence of God the wealth, prosperity and peace of these Islands and of the Empire do mainly depend"

What a sorry reflection on the Navy of today .....

Jack


----------



## Varley

I have never sniped at our military colleagues except in jest (sailing on Wednesday being the ruination of two weekends!). The rules of engagement are set by politicians. My aim is firmly towards them.

I am sure the articles of war will allow you to serve us well without ammendment. The same cannot be said of the articles in Westminster.


----------



## jamesgpobog

> Protection of our trade routes is one of the few 'services' we expect of (gov't).


 Very interesting discussion, and Varley is right on here. For me it broadens the question a little (but not much) in the whole discussion of the relationship between citizens and gov't.

Obviously at some level here we are talking about some sort of social contract, in this case the duty of gov't to maintain or police dangerous waters where it's merchant ships travel. Until recently, it seems that no one (nations) has done anything to counter the current piracy problem.

So to my question. Several here have wondered about the legality of armed merchantmen, but if/when gov'ts fail in their social contract obligations, what then? Should mariners even worry about a legality issue if nothing is being done to protect them?


----------



## barrinoz

jamesgpobog said:


> .
> So to my question. Several here have wondered about the legality of armed merchantmen, but if/when gov'ts fail in their social contract obligations, what then? *Should mariners even worry about a legality issue if nothing is being done to protect them?*


Do you mean, should the merchant mariners shoot first and ask questions later? 
First of all, James....it's illegal. Secondly.......it's illegal.
Don't matter a rat's ass whether they're shooting at you. I doubt if even your revered Constitutional Bill of Rights would get that one past the Hague.
Thirdly, I'm told it takes an enormous amount of intestinal fortitude to deliberately kill someone - unless you're a piratical desperado!
Fourthly, as tax-paying citizens, merchant mariners are entitled to their government agencies' protection irrespective of their location and the cost of providing it.
barrinoz.


----------



## jamesgpobog

barrinoz said:


> Do you mean, should the merchant mariners shoot first and ask questions later?
> First of all, James....it's illegal. Secondly.......it's illegal.
> Don't matter a rat's ass whether they're shooting at you. I doubt if even your revered Constitutional Bill of Rights would get that one past the Hague.
> Thirdly, I'm told it takes an enormous amount of intestinal fortitude to deliberately kill someone - unless you're a piratical desperado!
> Fourthly, as tax-paying citizens, merchant mariners are entitled to their government agencies' protection irrespective of their location and the cost of providing it.
> barrinoz.


Did you miss the first part of my question? I specifically described a situation where the social contract has been broken, and gov'ts are doing NOTHING about protecting merchant shipping. What then? Or is that an inconceivable situation that can't possibly happen?


----------



## Binnacle

Guns for hire ?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/8585967.stm


----------



## James_C

jamesgpobog said:


> Did you miss the first part of my question? I specifically described a situation where the social contract has been broken, and gov'ts are doing NOTHING about protecting merchant shipping. What then? Or is that an inconceivable situation that can't possibly happen?


Who decides when the "contract" is broken? Me, you, a Judge, the Govt?
To put that judgement solely on the part of the individual and then uphold that in law sets a very worrying legal precedent - it's only a step away from state approved anarchy.


----------



## chadburn

This is from my copy of JSP 385 "Rules of Engagement"

Section 3, A challenge MUST be given before opening fire unless;
a, to do so would increase the risk of death or grave injury to you or any other person.
OR
b, you or others in the immediate vicinity are under armed attack.

Section 4, you are to make the challenge by shouting NAVY, ARMY, AIR FORCE, STOP OR I FIRE or words to that effect.

(this is the most important bit)
OPENING FIRE
Section 5, You may only open fire against a person'
a, if he she is committing or about to commit an act LIKELY TO ENDANGER LIFE AND THERE IS NO OTHER WAY TO PREVENT THE DANGER, dependent alway's on the cir***stances, the following are some examples of such act's;
(1) firing or being about to fire a weapon;

(2) planting, detonating or throwing an explosive device(including a petrol bomb)
(3) deliberatly driving a vehicle at a person when there is no other way of stopping them.

As you see the "Rules of Engagement" do not say that you are not allowed to open fire without seeking permission. You are left to make your own judgement as the person who is actually there and confronted with the situation.
The Israeli flagged vessel's that I served on worked more or less on the same Rule's.


----------



## jamesgpobog

James_C said:


> Who decides when the "contract" is broken? Me, you, a Judge, the Govt?
> To put that judgement solely on the part of the individual and then uphold that in law sets a very worrying legal precedent - it's only a step away from state approved anarchy.


I don't know, that's why I am asking. I don't think the current situation is there quite yet.


----------



## LouisB

jamesgpobog said:


> Very interesting discussion, and Varley is right on here. For me it broadens the question a little (but not much) in the whole discussion of the relationship between citizens and gov't.
> 
> Obviously at some level here we are talking about some sort of social contract, in this case the duty of gov't to maintain or police dangerous waters where it's merchant ships travel. Until recently, it seems that no one (nations) has done anything to counter the current piracy problem.
> 
> So to my question. Several here have wondered about the legality of armed merchantmen, but if/when gov'ts fail in their social contract obligations, what then? Should mariners even worry about a legality issue if nothing is being done to protect them?



At the risk of being shouted down I'll repeat what I have stated on previous threads regarding piracy and official protection.

If it was airliners being hijacked on a regular basis it would be dealt with immediately with harsh or fatal summary justice - all demonstrated years ago by ourselves (UK) the Germans and the French, also the Israelis. This isn't aircraft however, it's seafarers and I'm afraid old attitudes towards merchant seafarers still prevail.

Whilst hoping that it doesn't, let us see what would happen if a large, British flagged passenger ship full of American citizens was pirated? I somehow think legal arguments and propriety would be disregarded and some very positive action taken by the U.S. military - even if only for the passengers safety. Seafarers have human rights as well as pirates although this never seems to be mentioned or pursued by our elected representitives.

LouisB (Scribe)


----------



## DAVID ALCOCK

the only people with human rights are the criminals!!!!!!!!just check out all recent cases!
VICTIMS HAVE NO HUMAN RIGHTS


----------



## Satanic Mechanic

DAVID ALCOCK said:


> the only people with human rights are the criminals!!!!!!!!just check out all recent cases!
> VICTIMS HAVE NO HUMAN RIGHTS


Afraid not - everybody has human rights, you, me , victims, pirates - everybody. Think very very carefully if you really want the legislation revoked


----------



## John Dryden

I remember reading about the Chinese sending a warship for ant-piracy duties,caused a bit of a stir for about five minutes!
With so many different nations sending navy ships to that area you would think that governments might get more organised re. convoys.Or are they just showing off?


----------



## Andrew Craig-Bennett

The PLA Navy have at any given moment at least two ships engaged in convoying merchant ships and they have gained a very good reputation amongst merchant shipping of all nations, with the proviso that they are keen on _close_ convoy formations and some people have muttered that 42 hours on hand steering is a bit much to ask! They are not of course a part of EUNAVFOR but they work closely with it.

More generally the convoys through the Straits work very well and the reporting system now runs smoothly. The more serious problems now arise outside that area.


----------



## Mike S

I wonder........are those that query the legality of merchant ships firing back seafarers or ex seafarers?
If not then I suggest they restrict their comments and listen to those poor sods on the receiving end of this evil.
Secondly, does it matter which nation is supplying the escort? It would not worry me within reason and as always escorted convoys are by far the best way of defence. Lets face it, it would need to be a very foolhardy pirate to try and attack under the guns of a gimlet eyed PLA gunner. 
As for wiping out the pirates......are you serious! Nice idea as long as some one else does it methinks.


----------



## jamesgpobog

> I wonder........are those that query the legality of merchant ships firing back seafarers or ex seafarers?
> If not then I suggest they restrict their comments and listen to those poor sods on the receiving end of this evil.


 You talking to me? U.S. Navy 1970-1976, Vietnam war. 




> ...listen to those poor sods on the receiving end of this evil.


 I am, and for the life of me, I cannot figure out why you do not with to have the ability to defend yourselves...


----------



## Mike S

No.....it was a general comment and directed at no one in particular. You would have to be more qualified to comment than many on this forum.
Fighting back would have to be done by people that knew how to fight back. I have no qualms about having a bunch of ex fighting forces on board to protect me however that does not alter the fact that convoys are the best way and the most effective.


----------



## Satanic Mechanic

Mike S said:


> No.....it was a general comment and directed at no one in particular. You would have to be more qualified to comment than many on this forum.
> Fighting back would have to be done by people that knew how to fight back. I have no qualms about having a bunch of ex fighting forces on board to protect me however that does not alter the fact that convoys are the best way and the most effective.


It is a legal minefield Mike - you can call them ex fighting forces, private security operatives, retired military - whatever - what you are actually doing is employing mercenaries to use fire arms in international waters - the company I work for will not touch them with a barge pole - the potential for serious legal problems, the logistics and the outrageous cost are all major issues - it is the company's and indeed much of the industries opinion that this is an international problem that must get dealt with at governmental level and if force is to be used it must be from military and not mercenaries.

We use convoys - we have no problem


----------



## Andrew Craig-Bennett

Satanic Mechanic said:


> It is a legal minefield Mike - you can call them ex fighting forces, private security operatives, retired military - whatever - what you are actually doing is employing mercenaries to use fire arms in international waters - the company I work for will not touch them with a barge pole - the potential for serious legal problems, the logistics and the outrageous cost are all major issues - it is the company's and indeed much of the industries opinion that this is an international problem that must get dealt with at governmental level and if force is to be used it must be from military and not mercenaries.
> 
> We use convoys - we have no problem


Sounds like your employers have not had a ship pirated yet.

We have; we started using "mercenaries" as you call them straight afterwards.

So did the biggest shipowner under the British flag, whose owner, ex RN WW2, was very clear about it.

Let me assure you, it concentrates the mind wonderfully when wives of seafarers are called to the phone to hear their husbands screaming and begging for mercy.

Convoys are fine in the convoy area - what about the rest of the Indian Ocean?


----------



## Satanic Mechanic

Andrew Craig-Bennett said:


> Sounds like your employers have not had a ship pirated yet.
> 
> We have; we started using "mercenaries" as you call them straight afterwards.
> 
> So did the biggest shipowner under the British flag, whose owner, ex RN WW2, was very clear about it.
> 
> Let me assure you, it concentrates the mind wonderfully when wives of seafarers are called to the phone to hear their husbands screaming and begging for mercy.
> 
> Convoys are fine in the convoy area - what about the rest of the Indian Ocean?


We take other precautions - which i think you will appreciate I am not going to detail here and we have indeed never had a successful pirate attack - not the same as not having a pirate attack (Smoke)

But mercenaries - because that is what they are - just not going to happen


----------



## LouisB

Satanic Mechanic said:


> It is a legal minefield Mike - you can call them ex fighting forces, private security operatives, retired military - whatever - what you are actually doing is employing mercenaries to use fire arms in international waters - the company I work for will not touch them with a barge pole - the potential for serious legal problems, the logistics and the outrageous cost are all major issues - it is the company's and indeed much of the industries opinion that this is an international problem that must get dealt with at governmental level and if force is to be used it must be from military and not mercenaries.
> 
> We use convoys - we have no problem


I partially agree with what you say, insofar that we should not have a rag tag group of mercenaries of unknown provenance hiring themselves out. The legal issues that you mention however have me puzzled. Any legal challenge to despatching a few pirates would be the same whether it was actioned by armed civilians or the band of the Royal Marines. The legality of killing somebody in a none war situation is the same in our country no matter who does it and as yet there is no world statute book of one size fitting all. Even in the UN, as there are too many members with their own axe to grind to achieve unanimity.

This raises the question of who exactly would challenge armed guards on vessels. Most of the western world allows self defence by the individual commensurate with the perceived threat, even to the point of deadly force if life is threatened. For discussion I would be interested in the scenario that would put armed civilians on trial for murder whilst defending a ships crew from possible death - and the threat of being killed must be there otherwise why would the pirates be carrying automatic weapons and grenade launchers?

I can quite understand some of our American cousins being baffled by our attitude towards fighting back and defending ourselves. Incidentally our very own S.A.S. were fighting secret wars for years in the Middle East - hired by the local ruler, or doesn't that count as mercenary because they were mainly British with HMG brokering the deal? Maybe if we haven't the will to do it ourselves we should hire American Green Berets to do it - no qualms there then?


LouisB. (Scribe)


----------



## Satanic Mechanic

There is of course another side to all this - its not (or at least it wasn't) in the pirates interest to harm captured crews as that invites armed intervention, but once you start shooting pirates at sea it just ups the ante to very lethal levels for captured crew - there does at times seem to be a 'but we're alright Jack' attitude.

The only cir***stances where I would accept armed response is if there were no more captured ships, then beast in - but no company paid mercs


----------



## Mike S

OK point taken.......don't entirely agree however I am long retired and you are facing the problem. Fair enough.
Instead of hired mercs use the armed forces of the maritime flag nations on the merchant vessels. In practical terms worrying about upping the ante is an odd reaction when we look at the firepower available to retaliate. Fighting back is a natural reaction and outside the convoy areas it would seem that using the armed forces to protect the vessels would work. 
As for the legal side.........never seemed to worry the Americans when they sent in the Marines to Libya all those years ago. Worked then.....
As a matter of interest is the pirate problem still evident around the Malacca Straits and Indonesia? We don't seem to hear as much of it these days.


----------



## chadburn

The important line is that "No armed Merchant Vessel has been hijacked by Pirate's".


----------



## Andrew Craig-Bennett

Satanic Mechanic said:


> There is of course another side to all this - its not (or at least it wasn't) in the pirates interest to harm captured crews as that invites armed intervention, but once you start shooting pirates at sea it just ups the ante to very lethal levels for captured crew - there does at times seem to be a 'but we're alright Jack' attitude.
> 
> The only cir***stances where I would accept armed response is if there were no more captured ships, then beast in - but no company paid mercs


I think you are out of date; captured crew members have been murdered and tortured.

This is an effective means of increasing the pressure on the owners to pay up. The pirates are more brutal now than they were even two years ago.


----------



## A.D.FROST

Do you still get paid whilst you are captured or does it stop just like when you were sunk during the WWII?


----------



## Andrew Craig-Bennett

Some get paid, some do not. Respectable owners pay of course, but there is one ship where the owners, who are understood to have been Greek, have just abandoned their ship and walked away, leaving their crew completely at mercy of their captors, who, since they know from the Somali grapevine that the owners have walked away, no longer have any reason to treat them as anything except expendable slaves.


----------



## Satanic Mechanic

Andrew Craig-Bennett said:


> I think you are out of date; captured crew members have been murdered and tortured.
> 
> This is an effective means of increasing the pressure on the owners to pay up. The pirates are more brutal now than they were even two years ago.


I am fully aware of that Andrew, my point is why up the stakes. Killing pirates is a dangerous way to go in my opinion. There are also many pirate attacks that are repelled without a fire fight. But again to me we are fighting the symptoms and not curing the problem and in order to do either diplomatically or militarilyit must come from organisation operating at a government level not privately by companies.


----------



## Satanic Mechanic

chadburn said:


> The important line is that "No armed Merchant Vessel has been hijacked by Pirate's".


But there have been firefights, there are other ways - rather good ways as well.


----------



## richardwakeley

Totally agree with Andrew on this one. I have been a "shore tech" for long time now and only sail on short trips doing my job, but the crew have the choice of repatriation before passing the pirate area. If it was me, i would say "no armed guards then i'm not going". Had a few jobs recently installing communication gear etc. in "citadels" (steering flat), but this is only useful if the naval forces are close enough.


----------



## 40907

I came across this....

http://gcaptain.com/weapons-free-pirates-decimated/?44043


----------



## jamesgpobog

> There is of course another side to all this - its not (or at least it wasn't) in the pirates interest to harm captured crews as that invites armed intervention, but once you start shooting pirates at sea it just ups the ante to very lethal levels for captured crew





> my point is why up the stakes.


That sounds suspiciously like "Don't make the bully mad, just give him what he wants", which has worked so well in schoolyards for ages. 



> Killing pirates is a dangerous way to go in my opinion.


 Of course it could also be argued that's exactly what they want you to believe.



> we are fighting the symptoms and not curing the problem


What's the problem then?


----------



## Varley

James, Unlike you to miss the point. Fighting the symptoms does not cure the problem but merely consumes 'medication' and 'carer' resources which would otherwise not be required. Unless the problem is removed this will be a continuously recurring additional opcost.

Perhaps there is already yet another parasitic industry springing into being - perish the thought that they might be the only ones to benefit from allowing this to be a chronic rather than acute illness.

(Perhaps I am overdoing the medical analogies but hope you see what I am getting at).

David V


----------



## jamesgpobog

Varley said:


> James, Unlike you to miss the point. Fighting the symptoms does not cure the problem but merely consumes 'medication' and 'carer' resources which would otherwise not be required. Unless the problem is removed this will be a continuously recurring additional opcost.
> 
> Perhaps there is already yet another parasitic industry springing into being - perish the thought that they might be the only ones to benefit from allowing this to be a chronic rather than acute illness.
> 
> (Perhaps I am overdoing the medical analogies but hope you see what I am getting at).
> 
> David V


Then I ask for the second time, what is the problem that needs to be the target of the cure?


----------



## LouisB

Varley said:


> James, Unlike you to miss the point. Fighting the symptoms does not cure the problem but merely consumes 'medication' and 'carer' resources which would otherwise not be required. Unless the problem is removed this will be a continuously recurring additional opcost.
> 
> Perhaps there is already yet another parasitic industry springing into being - perish the thought that they might be the only ones to benefit from allowing this to be a chronic rather than acute illness.
> 
> (Perhaps I am overdoing the medical analogies but hope you see what I am getting at).
> 
> David V



By symptoms I presume that you mean the pirates are driven to steal because of their poor diminished cir***stances and poverty, lack of food and shelter etc etc? As has been explained in previous threads on this subject, local and national intelligence and coastal dwellers/fishermen tell a different story.

Little or nothing of the ransom monies is distributed locally as it is reported to be spent on a mixture of weapons, drugs, anti government (such as it is) terrorist groups and large houses for the piracy Mr. Bigs - usually in the bigger cities/towns. This is well known within the commercial intelligence agencies and underwriting circles.
It is only that some fishermen have, in the past, seen how easy it is that they have had a dabble themselves. Most of the above has been reported on before, both in the press and on the radio by foreign correspondents. The locals themselves are terrified of the pirates.

The so called symptoms are no such thing it is just direct lawlessness caused by greed and the ability to get away with it. If somebody is suffering from a serious viral infection then you kill the virus. The virus lives on its host and will eventually kill that host unless it is itself killed. Two cc of 30mm HE please nurse, that should help the patient get rid of his nasty infection. (A)



LouisB. (Scribe)


----------



## Mike S

Familiar story through history.
As I said........it is enshrined in the US Marine Corps Hymn.
"From the halls of Montezuma to the shores of Tripoli" It worked then and it would work again.
They are a bunch of druggy opportunists out for some big dollars. As soon as red hot lead comes back at them they run. Once again same old same old.
I have zero sympathy for them and what ever it takes is what it takes.
I would much prefer to have a disciplined fighting force on board to deal with them if not in convoy or even both. However when there are juicy targets running around owned by one ship company's registered in Outer Mongolia there are always going to be victims. 
I am very grateful that I am not out there having to deal with it. Good luck to those that are.


----------



## DAVID ALCOCK

We all know the problem no real government ,no food production,population doubled since BANDAID,no OIL so no real incentive to sort it out,US tried halfheartedly (remember film blackhawk down) 
Would a coastal blockade be more effective use of navies than trying to find a pirate in an ocean,unable to do anything till pirates fire weapons which of coarse they dont do if navy around??
I noticed no ship positions in area to avoid helping pirates!!
Iff all ships sailed from texas to texas no problem, but when a port official could be related to or paid by pirates or just plain burocratic ,that is where the problems arise ,and where a legal solution is needed!


----------



## Varley

Louis,

No, I meant symptoms as in individuals with AK47s and small boats seriously interferring with one of our important trade routes, our economy, those of my colleagues still at sea and those of whatever colour that have replaced them.

Topical treatments will never reach the underlying problem which we all seem to agree is in the incorrect infrastructure ashore. Stuart administrations tried complying with ransom demands of the Barbary Corsairs (posh name for mudering foreign bastards). Of course this did nothing but encourage them, as it does now (if we have learned from history why have not our masters?).

Because the 'topical' containing the individual Corsairs cannot be completely effective it will do nothing to reduce their number or the other criminals behind them. It may probably do the reverse.

This truly useless piece of sovereign real estate certainly has no need of an infrastructure that is criminal and before the most optimistic of social engineers can hope to establish one that is reputable it must be taken down.

HE? is there enough?


----------



## RayJordandpo

Satanic Mechanic said:


> We take other precautions - which i think you will appreciate I am not going to detail here and we have indeed never had a successful pirate attack - not the same as not having a pirate attack (Smoke)
> 
> But mercenaries - because that is what they are - just not going to happen


What other precautions? Why won't you tell? If your vessels have never had a successful pirate attack or indeed a pirate attack at all and you are on to something that other companies don't know about, should we not all be party to it? (especially if it uses non violent methods)


----------



## Satanic Mechanic

RayJordandpo said:


> What other precautions? Why won't you tell? If your vessels have never had a successful pirate attack or indeed a pirate attack at all and you are on to something that other companies don't know about, should we not all be party to it? (especially if it uses non violent methods)


No we have had Pirate attacks - none successful. We use a number of methods including hoses, water wall, barbed wire, a citadel, secure accomodation , multiple restricted access and a couple of items we have been trying out which are known in the industry and which I am NOT going to detail here on a public forum - sorry


----------



## Satanic Mechanic

jamesgpobog said:


> Then I ask for the second time, what is the problem that needs to be the target of the cure?


Well - you have a country that has no law as such, has been allowed to decline to the state it is as it has nothing to offer the rest of the world. So organised crime can do what they want, add to this the fact that the countries waters have been stripped bare by foreign fishermen means that the crooks have a ready supply of hungary desperate empoverished and embittered men in the form of fishermen to do their dirty work, the result is a pretty lucrative industry.


----------



## LouisB

Satanic Mechanic said:


> Well - you have a country that has no law as such, has been allowed to decline to the state it is as it has nothing to offer the rest of the world. So organised crime can do what they want, add to this the fact that the countries waters have been stripped bare by foreign fishermen means that the crooks have a ready supply of hungary desperate empoverished and embittered men in the form of fishermen to do their dirty work, the result is a pretty lucrative industry.


Yup S.M. - that about sums the place up. I normally disagree with some of your posts but I think that your quote on this occassion is a reasonable approximation. I was going to inject some humour re Fishermens Friends but it would be in poor taste. (No pun intended)


LouisB. (Scribe)


----------



## jamesgpobog

Satanic Mechanic said:


> Well - you have a country that has no law as such, has been allowed to decline to the state it is as it has nothing to offer the rest of the world. So organised crime can do what they want, add to this the fact that the countries waters have been stripped bare by foreign fishermen means that the crooks have a ready supply of hungary desperate empoverished and embittered men in the form of fishermen to do their dirty work, the result is a pretty lucrative industry.


Hmm, sounds like a job for that international superhero, the U.N. What's holding them back? I'm sure they'd be very effective...(Hippy)(Jester)


----------



## Satanic Mechanic

jamesgpobog said:


> Hmm, sounds like a job for that international superhero, the U.N. What's holding them back? I'm sure they'd be very effective...(Hippy)(Jester)


The shameful thing is that the this is exactly the sort of thing the UN should be taking care of.


----------



## jamesgpobog

Satanic Mechanic said:


> The shameful thing is that the this is exactly the sort of thing the UN should be taking care of.


What's stopping them?


----------



## Ray Mac

What's stopping them?

Naa OIL me thinks.


----------



## China hand

It would never be said in polite circles, I am sure: 
But!
The record of the United Nations, The European Union, The North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, various interested nations with loads of naval hardware;
is FERKIN abysmal when it comes to organising a response to armed attacks to Merchant ships on the high seas.
Just imagine the HooHaa if some mullah or priest's convoy was highjacked on his way to the local screaming session??


----------



## LouisB

China hand said:


> It would never be said in polite circles, I am sure:
> But!
> The record of the United Nations, The European Union, The North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, various interested nations with loads of naval hardware;
> is FERKIN abysmal when it comes to organising a response to armed attacks to Merchant ships on the high seas.
> Just imagine the HooHaa if some mullah or priest's convoy was highjacked on his way to the local screaming session??


Spot on.

LouisB. (Scribe)


----------



## jamesgpobog

Absolutely correct, which bounces it back to my social contract question. So far there are several who have just made my point.


----------



## Satanic Mechanic

China hand said:


> It would never be said in polite circles, I am sure:
> But!
> The record of the United Nations, The European Union, The North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, various interested nations with loads of naval hardware;
> is FERKIN abysmal when it comes to organising a response to armed attacks to Merchant ships on the high seas.
> Just imagine the HooHaa if some mullah or priest's convoy was highjacked on his way to the local screaming session??


Why wouldn't it be said?

Actually I would say the naval response is not too bad - its the rest of the response that is lacking badly- i.e tackling the problem not the symptoms.

That last sentence is nonsensical and not particularly helpful


----------



## LouisB

Satanic Mechanic said:


> Why wouldn't it be said?
> 
> Actually I would say the naval response is not too bad - its the rest of the response that is lacking badly- i.e tackling the problem not the symptoms.
> 
> That last sentence is nonsensical and not particularly helpful


I think SM that China Hand was trying to put across the situation if a country that was religiously governed had one of their ships put into danger then that country would reply with no holds barred and no niceties observed.

With regard to the naval coverage I think that the UK is certainly fairly well stretched - both the type 45's tasked elsewhere and everything else spoken for. Hence the RFA's acting as escort/guardships. Nothing wrong with that of course and it's handled very professionally but not a role that they would have normally played in peacetime. It appears however that this policing action will now be the new norm' judging by the weapons now openly carried and displayed. 


LouisB. (Scribe)


----------



## Andrew Craig-Bennett

LouisB said:


> With regard to the naval coverage I think that the UK is certainly fairly well stretched - both the type 45's tasked elsewhere and everything else spoken for. Hence the RFA's acting as escort/guardships. Nothing wrong with that of course and it's handled very professionally but not a role that they would have normally played in peacetime. It appears however that this policing action will now be the new norm' judging by the weapons now openly carried and displayed. LouisB. (Scribe)


The RN needs some simple cheap ships for this sort of work; a modern version of the cabbage patch sloops. Design on the back of a *** packet follows:

No reason to make it too small. Bigger is cheaper. Crosshead diesel engine, single screw, merchant ship spec. 20,000 mile range at 14 knots, 16 knots flat chat. Decent space for a couple of helicopters and a hangar. To carry five or six RIBs. Accomodation for some Marines. One 4.5" gun. KISS = cheap.


----------



## Mike S

You could pretty well charter that on the open market.


----------



## jamesgpobog

My thought has always been toward a Q-ship type approach, but that's not a a necessity. I like this type of craft, but a bit larger and with a larger stern deck. I like the idea of some RIB's, but for on board weaponry I have always thought a couple Phalanx CIWS would be perfect, 1 bow, 1 stern.


----------



## LouisB

Andrew Craig-Bennett said:


> The RN needs some simple cheap ships for this sort of work; a modern version of the cabbage patch sloops. Design on the back of a *** packet follows:
> 
> No reason to make it too small. Bigger is cheaper. Crosshead diesel engine, single screw, merchant ship spec. 20,000 mile range at 14 knots, 16 knots flat chat. Decent space for a couple of helicopters and a hangar. To carry five or six RIBs. Accomodation for some Marines. One 4.5" gun. KISS = cheap.


There are four Military Afloat Reach and Sustainability (MARS) vessels ordered from Korean shipyards for R.F.A. manning. Although built in Korea there will,it appears, be some work for U.K. companies also.

I think that the main criteria for placing the order was a mixture of cost and guaranteed delivery times. Possibly some future Naval vessels built to adapted commercial designs could be built for policing duties, by shipyards such as those in Korea, if the price was right. I am not talking about all out fighting ships with complex weapon systems and high crewing levels but something akin although smaller to the M.A.R.S. vessels already ordered.

Of course there will be comments on not building them in the U.K. but our record of cost - especially overuns, and guaranteed delivery times is just not competitive enough. Korea today produce some very well built ships and with,if required, a fair degree of complexity. Oh I forgot - and on time.


LouisB. (Scribe)


----------



## DAVID ALCOCK

now thats a nice idea andrew ,but the usn beat you to it ,added a bit of speed and some stealth;in production as LITORAL COMBAT SHIP,OOOOPS lost the cheep somewhere and the combat part is somewhat lacking espesialy as the add on modules are too expensive or dont work ;according to the press:who always get it right ho ho ho!


----------



## DAVID ALCOCK

ps MARS =TESCO LOCALwith gas station


----------



## Satanic Mechanic

LouisB said:


> Of course there will be comments on not building them in the U.K. but our record of cost - especially overuns, and guaranteed delivery times is just not competitive enough. Korea today produce some very well built ships and with,if required, a fair degree of complexity. Oh I forgot - and on time.
> 
> 
> LouisB. (Scribe)


Louis

No British yards tendered for the the contract. 

Korean yards are a good bit beyond 'a fair degree of complexity' - LNG vessels, 6th generation drill vessels and FPSOs are bread and butter to them nowadays!! The main reason for cost over runs are not the UK yards but the MoD - everyone is just dying to see how they get on with Korean Yards (LOL)


----------



## DAVID ALCOCK

BBC news chanel has a30min prog on piracy protection at the moment it will be repeated adnausium for next few days at least


----------



## beautripp

*Piracy research*

Hi, I am a final year student at Plymouth University studying Navigation and Maritime Science. I am currently undertaking a research project into seafarers opinions on piracy, specifically in Somalia. If you would be able to complete my survey it would be very helpful! Thank you! 

https://qtrial.qualtrics.com/SE/?SID=SV_1Ya2LlNnxYZBswd


----------



## sibby

Remember putting clusters all round Bamenda Palm anchored waiting to go up to port Harcourt 1966, to put off Pirates. The only weapons we were allowed were a whistle each and a baseball bat to use to repel boarders. The third mate had a starting pistol to unofficially use to deter said pirates. Luckily no incidents. Very exciting times. Piracy is not new.


----------



## Varley

sibby said:


> Remember putting clusters all round Bamenda Palm anchored waiting to go up to port Harcourt 1966, to put off Pirates. The only weapons we were allowed were a whistle each and a baseball bat to use to repel boarders. The third mate had a starting pistol to unofficially use to deter said pirates. Luckily no incidents. Very exciting times. Piracy is not new.


No, Sibby. Nor is the solution. After an 100 years of faffing about as HMG and others Gs (Russia honourable exception) do now Sir Edward Pellew was sent to make the appropriate (now, as then) diplomatic approach. It worked.


----------



## trotterdotpom

David, what did Pellew's diplomatic approach involve?

John T


----------



## Varley

Reducing the port of Algiers to rubble.


----------



## trotterdotpom

Varley said:


> Reducing the port of Algiers to rubble.


Sounds serious, I bet they wished the French paras had stuck around. That's the way the arti chokes.

John T


----------



## Varley

R651400 said:


> French paras 1816? Sans question jumping from a Montgolfier hot air balloon!


Damn clever those Froggies! (Sister-in-Law's late Pa was one, and fought in Algeria - I think they used more modern 'vehicles' 'though).


----------

