Question Taking on Pirates

[lennartsmit]

The best would be securing the ports - or do you think such small boats are made for being in the waters for weeks?

Of course it would be more dirty work, but likely cheaper than forming convoys to keep the worlds economy alive.

These boats are so small you could launch them anywhere where you have a beach or a ramp.

 

[T.Neo]

.50cal BMG is already overkill.

That depends on what you're using it for. Larger weapons would certainly have a more profound psychological effect for example.

Piracy attempts tend to fail when there is any resistance by the crew (using the captain's pistol, Molotov cocktails, thrown bricks etc.)

Resistance isn't much good when the crew is taken by surprise.

 

[lennartsmit]

Resistance isn't much good when the crew is taken by surprise.

I don't think there is an element of surprise as there should always be someone on the bridge keeping watch. The problem is the fact that an RPG has a range of 900 meters.
The boat can stay a kilometer away where pistols and rifles wouldn't hit someone and still make the crew surrender, as one hit of a grenade would puncture the hull and cause fire. Unless you have a large military sniper there wouldn't be much use of having guns onboard.

Off-topic: Why is it an RPG? Is it because of the a sound, as in start, in the begin of R?

 

[Ark]

I don't think there is an element of surprise as there should always be someone on the bridge keeping watch. The problem is the fact that an RPG has a range of 900 meters.
The boat can stay a kilometer away where pistols and rifles wouldn't hit someone and still make the crew surrender, as one hit of a grenade would puncture the hull and cause fire. Unless you have a large military sniper there wouldn't be much use of having guns onboard.

Off-topic: Why is it an RPG? Is it because of the a sound, as in start, in the begin of R?

Because the "R" in RPG is pronounced "arrr".

Also, 900 meters is a bit optimistic for those things, isn't it? RPGs are a bit notorious for being grossly inaccurate.

 

[Ghostrider]

I don't think there is an element of surprise as there should always be someone on the bridge keeping watch. The problem is the fact that an RPG has a range of 900 meters.

That's the weapon's maximum range, not its effective range. Although a ship is a pretty large target, they'd need to use the RPGs like mortars.
And why get a sniper rifle? A M2 Browning .50 HMG has the range and the power to turn their boat into shreds with a couple of bursts.

But the problem is that they'll never authorize weapons on the ships because if they did, many nations would not allow them into their harbours and that means loss of revenue. The cargo is insured and the crew is insured as well. As callous as it may sound like, even if the pirates slaughter the crew, the company will lose nothing. There's plenty of people to crew their ships, and it's not like they're going on strike anytime soon over the job's dangers.

 

[Eagle]

But the problem is that they'll never authorize weapons on the ships because if they did, many nations would not allow them into their harbours and that means loss of revenue. The cargo is insured and the crew is insured as well. As callous as it may sound like, even if the pirates slaughter the crew, the company will lose nothing. There's plenty of people to crew their ships, and it's not like they're going on strike anytime soon over the job's dangers.

I've suggested in previous discussions that this issue might be circumvented by loading armed security personnel only in "at risk" areas and having them disembark as soon as the ship leaves the area. There's not much sense in having armed guards all the way between Italy and China. Of course there's a lot of inertia against the idea, especially since most ships make it through without problems.

 

[ar81]

That all said, how the hell do you change those elements of a culture when 40% of people are 15 or younger?

Deep cultural changes take time. You will not solve it in a split second. It may need strong local organized activism to improve things. Imposing from outside will not work, because the will of change does not come from them.

Try to tell them what they're doing is wrong, and they'll probably shoot you in the face.

Yes. I have had that experience in internet. People usually have the government and economy they deserve, considering their habits and beliefs. What makes me feel sad about it is that while some people strongly believe in statu quo, some others suffer and it makes you feel like you should tell them what they're doing is wrong. That's quite a dilemma.

In the end I realized I should take care of my square meter of planet and keep it clean of human misery. If everyone did that, this would be a better world.

They already hate Westerners and blame us for their problems (probably rightfully), so they sure won't listen to us when we try to explain the wisdom of seeing past your own nose.

They shouldn't blame westerners. They should blame their own politicians. If the country is paying lots of taxpayer money due to huge govt debt, instead of spending this money in development, it was their politicians. Politicians get the loan, spend the monay, and then people will pay later (not them).

If there is a company abusing of people or not bringing local population any benefits because of the exctraction of natural resources (like oil in Nigeria which does not even contribute even to build a local school) blame local politicians for making bad negotiations, probably because of bribes.

If they have war, blame local politicians who care more about power than about population welfare.

It doesn't really look like a problem that can ever be solved.

Every problem can be solved. The problem is that there are some people interested in preserving the system, since they benefit from that.

The civilized world has lower birthrates because everyone has enough wealth and stability to afford the luxury of planning ahead.

In less than 200 years we passed from farming to an urban culture. In a farm, food is produced there and more kids means more arms to get the job done. No more farming, no more need of having kids. Kids become a load instead of a blessing as there is no guaranteed job for them.

In 1790, about 90% of Americans were farmers. Nowadays it is about 2.9% due to automation that brings even higher productivity than in 1790.

In a sci-fi Utopia, technology and automation would have allowed Americans to enjoy and have spare time. It means that 87.1% of Americans would have free food due to automation. But the system does not work like that. It means that 87.1% will need to find a job for themselves.

Even if there is 9.7% unemployment, and 20% underemployment, it is quite an achievement because it means that even after being displaced, the system evolved to keep most of people with a job, instead of having 87.1% unemployment.

Economists (used to plan for the supply side, companies) will need to plan for demand side (people's buying power), not only to balance current macroeconmy, but also plan ahead in the long term and think about what creates employment, instead of using silly assumptions like they do nowadays. 200 years to move from farming to urban society is too little time. The effects of this system are yet to be seen.

This isn't the answer to failing states, because elevating everyone on the planet to the quality of life of your average American would take the resources of three or four Earths.

This is possible due to:

1.Expensive dollars that make Americans to have more buying power, but also it makes American workers more expensive, so jobs go overseas. This is clearly unsustainable.

2.Credit cards add some buying power in the short term. Economic cycles of boom and bust are determined by banks. Boom comes when people use credit, and bust and recession comes when it is time to repay. In the past, recession was exported to poor countries (due to dependence on exports and poor crisis management in poor countries to stop importing crisis) where poor people get poorer, but nowadays the gap between Americans and poor people elsewhere is so high that jobs are being exported.

So poverty elsewhere causes poverty in US today. The "boom" of consuming more than anyone on the planet with credit and exporting crisis is reaching the point of "bust" as crisis bounces back from poor countries.

If Americans are to recover an affordable lifestyle, a worldwide middle class should be created, and Americans need to save money.

They're dependent on international aid to keep them alive long enough to pop out more kids, yet reject any kind of international governance, education, or other nation-building efforts. The situation can't be ignored or left alone, because there will only be ever more of them fighting for the same limited resources.

Blame local lazy politicians in poor countries.

I'm probably not the only one looking at all these things and wondering if it's just all separate symptoms of the same problem. Failed states, piracy, terrorism, the bottomless black hole of lives and money that is the War on Terror...are these all just endless skirmishes in the overall war between the Haves and Have-Nots? If so, the numbers are fast tipping in the latter's favor.

Poverty always bring violence. Chinese revolution, French revolution, Russian revolution, were fueled by sudden increase of extreme poverty.

When economy fails to provide an opportunity for a decent job with decent wage, people stop working for society and becomes a predator: Terrorist, gangster, pirate, etc. I advice you to watch the documentary "Death in Gaza" by James Miller. You can see how poverty fuels violence in a conflict zone. I think it should be in YouTube.

 

[wehaveaproblem]

Good ol' Ross Kemp did quite a good documentary on Somali pirates.

3 relevant points form that which are worth raising I think.

1. The pirates didn't like being pirates, they didn't want to be pirates. Contrary to popular belief their didn't seem to be any brovado, male willy-waving anywhere. Instead there were desperately poor and impoverished people desperate for some income and means to survive. These people live in a place that is basically a rubbish-tip, most of them addicted to glue iirc. I'd be a pirate if I were them.

2. The Royal Navy were frustrated as hell by their job. They had a huge area of water to patrol, so reactive operations was nigh on futile and proactive operations were basically looking for needles in haystacks and hoping for some luck. They are only allowed to use force if they actually capture pirates in the act of piracy, before or after the fact and they cannot do anything, legally.

3. The vast majority of the piracy does not involve aquisition of ships, but rather robbery of cash. It seems the tankers carry wages and the like on board. So the pirates use small and fast vessels to come along side, climb aboard and rob at machete/gun point.

All these points make tackling this issue very difficult indeed, without a vast influx of resources that is. To me, it seems that the root cause of the problem is the corruption and poverty in Somalia itself. But since there is no oil or WMDs there, I doubt the rest of the world will intervene to the necessary level.

[nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RaBqHyPu9II"]YouTube- Ross Kemp In Search Of Pirates 1 (1/5)[/nomedia]

 

[Bj]

:lol: Good story. Don't know if it's true, but it's amusing. The two incidents really have little in common, I was just using it as a comparison to convey my respect for the EU people for their discretion.

As silly as it seems to adopt WW2 strategies to deal with pirates in dinghys, traveling in convoys may be the best solution. These guys set out with the expectation of going after a helpless and unarmed ship, and know full well they aren't equipped to deal with Navy vessels. All but the stupidest will turn around and go elsewhere. It doesn't solve the underlying problems, but it seems like the most bloodless solution until someone figures out how to really solve it.

Friendly fire happens all the time. The only specific case I remember from history class was the Oxley which was a submarine in the British navy was torpedoed by the Triton which also turned out to be a nice big cover up by the navy for a while too.

I've suggested in previous discussions that this issue might be circumvented by loading armed security personnel only in "at risk" areas and having them disembark as soon as the ship leaves the area. There's not much sense in having armed guards all the way between Italy and China. Of course there's a lot of inertia against the idea, especially since most ships make it through without problems.

I think convoys would be the best solution, since there is regulations for in port arms and whatnot, but it really doesn't need to be as exaggerated as WW2 convoys was. Put say, 10 merchant ships under one destroyers care. When a pirate vessel is sighted then that ship can shoot some warning shots in front of the approaching vessel. Realistically, if they had a 10-60mm cannon shot infront of them, and they still had 1km left to go, they would turn around and that would be the end of it. If they don't divert then have the destroyer break from the convoy and go closer for a smaller (10-15mm) fire that is aimed directly at the engine. IMHO that's the perfect solution.

That depends on what you're using it for. Larger weapons would certainly have a more profound psychological effect for example.

Resistance isn't much good when the crew is taken by surprise.

On the ocean you can see a good distance out, and you have radar/sonar... its just tankers are not really designed to have the best vessel detection capabilities like warships would have.

 

[T.Neo]

I think convoys would be the best solution, since there is regulations for in port arms and whatnot, but it really doesn't need to be as exaggerated as WW2 convoys was. Put say, 10 merchant ships under one destroyers care. When a pirate vessel is sighted then that ship can shoot some warning shots in front of the approaching vessel. Realistically, if they had a 10-60mm cannon shot infront of them, and they still had 1km left to go, they would turn around and that would be the end of it. If they don't divert then have the destroyer break from the convoy and go closer for a smaller (10-15mm) fire that is aimed directly at the engine. IMHO that's the perfect solution.

10-60mm? 10-15mm? Calibres don't really work like that...

Ideal calibres IMO would be 12.7, 14.5 or 20mm, or high-velocity 40mm grenades.

Then again it relies heavily on what weapon system is being used, but still.


Pirates don't try to attack ships with RPGs, they sneak aboard undetected using oftenvery primitive means. And as someone else said, maximum overall range and maximum effective range are two different things...

A M2 Browning .50 HMG has the range and the power to turn their boat into shreds with a couple of bursts.

Perhaps, but it isn't as if a M2 machine gun is totally acceptable, or easy, to put on a tanker or freighter.

12.7x99mm is also not the only 12.7 cartridge around.

 

[Bj]

10-60mm? 10-15mm? Calibres don't really work like that...

Ideal calibres IMO would be 12.7, 14.5 or 20mm, or high-velocity 40mm grenades.

Then again it relies heavily on what weapon system is being used, but still.

eh? what do you mean they dont work like what? :huh:

I was referring to the relative size of the arms used. Like a vessel will fire a shell of a size between 10mm and 60mm for long range warnings, then for actual damaging fire use smaller shells between 10mm and 15mm. So like a 57mm for a long range like;

[nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XtOgY8L3Jy0"]YouTube- naval gun/ mk110[/nomedia]

would be shot in front of the vessel as warning.

then a smaller fire like a 14.5mm to the engine. Obviously its hard to hit and only damage a small section of the boat when you lob too big of shells.

All I'm saying is, big splash to divert and smaller boom for more precise attack. (which minimizes collateral damage)

Pirates don't try to attack ships with RPGs, they sneak aboard undetected using oftenvery primitive means.

I wouldn't doubt it, but radar would still be able to pick up those small boats right? If nothing else they can use that WW2 tactic era technology, binoculars or whats that other thing called.. having a directional microphone in the water to listen for splashes and outboards and stuff.

 

[Notebook]

:lol: Good story. Don't know if it's true, but it's amusing. The two incidents really have little in common, I was just using it as a comparison to convey my respect for the EU people for their discretion.

As silly as it seems to adopt WW2 strategies to deal with pirates in dinghys, traveling in convoys may be the best solution. These guys set out with the expectation of going after a helpless and unarmed ship, and know full well they aren't equipped to deal with Navy vessels. All but the stupidest will turn around and go elsewhere. It doesn't solve the underlying problems, but it seems like the most bloodless solution until someone figures out how to really solve it.

Convoys would be the best strategy, ...

N.

 

[T.Neo]

eh? what do you mean they dont work like what? :huh:

In that it isn't a scale from 10-15 or 10-60. There are several calibres between and including that, yes, but it isn't really a scale...

Several shots from a heavy machine gun should suffice as a warning, I'd imagine getting a 57mm cannon to do the same thing would be rather expensive.

I wouldn't doubt it, but radar would still be able to pick up those small boats right? If nothing else they can use that WW2 tactic era technology, binoculars or whats that other thing called.. having a directional microphone in the water to listen for splashes and outboards and stuff.

You can't have eyes looking in every direction at once.

As for microphones etc, perhaps. But cost again is the defining factor.

 

[Ghostrider]

There's also the little problem about training the crew - even if they allowed weapons on board. While some days of intensive training may allow you to use and maintain a HMG, a cannon is another matter: artillery needs calculations, trained observers and a whole new set of skills, you don't just aim it and blast away. Besides, that's explosive ordnance we're talking about and some delicate machinery that is exposed to a corrosive environment, there's a reason Navy people are trained to operate and maintain the stuff and you have workshops and specialized stores on a ship for that equipment.

 

[Bj]

There's also the little problem about training the crew - even if they allowed weapons on board.

Isn't the navy already trained to use their own equipment? That is of course if they did the whole convoy thing..

 

[Turbinator]

Somalia is a failed state, harbor for pirates.
Here an interesting article on the matter:

Mounting Stresses, Failing States

Somalia isn't a failed state, it's a state that has been abused and raped by the west, and then left for dead. Their misfortune is being located in a critical location where a significant amount of the world's ship traffic goes trough. And naturally they wanted to control and tax what goes trough their waters, the West wouldn't have any of this, and that's why Somalia is at the state it is at now.

 

[Notebook]

:lol: Good story. Don't know if it's true, but it's amusing. The two incidents really have little in common, I was just using it as a comparison to convey my respect for the EU people for their discretion.

As silly as it seems to adopt WW2 strategies to deal with pirates in dinghys, traveling in convoys may be the best solution. These guys set out with the expectation of going after a helpless and unarmed ship, and know full well they aren't equipped to deal with Navy vessels. All but the stupidest will turn around and go elsewhere. It doesn't solve the underlying problems, but it seems like the most bloodless solution until someone figures out how to really solve it.

This was my Uncle's ship, didn't get very far, but propably explains why he didn't like flying, or aircraft...

http://www.naval-history.net/xGM-Chrono-10DE-Cattistock.htm

N.

 

[ar81]

Somalia isn't a failed state, it's a state that has been abused and raped by the west, and then left for dead. Their misfortune is being located in a critical location where a significant amount of the world's ship traffic goes trough. And naturally they wanted to control and tax what goes trough their waters, the West wouldn't have any of this, and that's why Somalia is at the state it is at now.

I used to think in the past about "evil developed countries" because it was said by others, but I challenged this ideauntil I found by myself that it is local politicians who are the problem. Even if western countries stopped the abuse that local politicians allowed, if you tried to help, local politicians would be a big obstacle to you. Indeed western countries subsidize local politicians who cause a problem to western countries.

 

[ar81]

New genereation of pirates

 

[Notebook]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/8664011.stm

Russian forces have released the crew of a Russian oil tanker, Moscow University, seized by Somali pirates off the coast of Yemen on Wednesday

http://www.naval.com.br/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/marshal-shaposhnikov.jpg

Helps if you have something like that.

N.