a private navy is going to fight piracy. ..

[Burnham Bob]

Two different issues - sailing boats used by leisure sailors which can't carry arms and mechant shipping which could easily carry something heavy enough to see off pirates armed with AK47s and grenades.

The big money used to come from large ships held to ransom - small yachts are not really profitable and the likely attackers are more like maritime muggers than pirates. What was really concerning countries - and sparking demand for private navies - was the threat to commercial shipping.

By flexible rules of engagement I imagine you mean shoot to sink and kill. As soon as the risks genuinely outweigh the likely profits then the problem is likely to go away.

Although I freely admit to being nothing more than an armchair expert, I can't see why a really committed approach including armed merchant shipping would not solve the problem.

Leisure sailors would just have to accept that there are no go areas just as there are on land.

 

[maxi77]

Two different issues - sailing boats used by leisure sailors which can't carry arms and mechant shipping which could easily carry something heavy enough to see off pirates armed with AK47s and grenades.

The big money used to come from large ships held to ransom - small yachts are not really profitable and the likely attackers are more like maritime muggers than pirates. What was really concerning countries - and sparking demand for private navies - was the threat to commercial shipping.

By flexible rules of engagement I imagine you mean shoot to sink and kill. As soon as the risks genuinely outweigh the likely profits then the problem is likely to go away.

Although I freely admit to being nothing more than an armchair expert, I can't see why a really committed approach including armed merchant shipping would not solve the problem.

Leisure sailors would just have to accept that there are no go areas just as there are on land.

Agree to a large extent armed professional on merchant ships can significantly outgun the pirates and are thus likely to prevent boardings. I also agree that the return for pirates from yachts is relatively low but that has not stopped them being taken, so being small and poor and insignificant is not a satisfactory protection.

In the end the only way to defeat the pirates is to deny them their land base areas. If you have nowhere to keep the ships and crews, nowhere to negotiate from and nowhere to recruit/coerce your frontline crews your chances of success fall rapidly. That is why the recent operation to free a hostage ship and it's crew by Puntland forces is so important. The pirates are now being attacked in the one place they thought they were safe.

If you look at history, unfashionable I know, most major pirate epidemics, Caribbean, Barbary, and Sulu Sea for example were in the end defeated by removing their bases

 

[interloper]

Thats the problem. Most of the time it isn't British ships, or personnel.

What are the navies of Panama, Liberia, and The Bahamas doing to protect their ships?

BINGO!

The US Navy get's involved when the pirates attack US-flagged ships.

 

[Greenheart]

BINGO!

The US Navy get's involved when the pirates attack US-flagged ships.

Pardon me Interloper, but why would you apostrophise the word gets?

 

[Woodlouse]

Not sure any of this is necessary - Ships and yachts should take care of their own security.

If your flag doesn't allow weapons then change the flag, if you want to go this way - otherwise make an alternative route.

It's not the flag of the vessel that defines what sort of an armoury you are allowed to carry. In international waters you could have an anti aircraft gun bolted to your foredeck if you fancied it.

The problem is the bureaucracy involved when you reach port. Then you have to abide by that countries rules involving guns. More likely than not you'll have to hand them in to customs for the duration of your time spent in that countries waters, then you have to leave by the same port to get your guns back. Failure to declare that you are carrying weapons has the potential to land you behind bars in what could be a particularly unsavoury part of the world. All in all, not worth it in my opinion. I'd go with your second option and not go to places in which I'd feel the need to be armed.

 

[interloper]

Pardon me Interloper, but why would you apostrophise the word gets?

I liked the way it look'ed. ;-)

 

[interloper]

During the 1980s, the Kuwaiti government requested that the United States Navy provide escorts for its oil tankers to deter Iranian attacks. The United States required that the tankers be reflagged as US vessels before they would do this.

It is surprising to me that the US Navy doesn't get involved when the vessels of allied countries are attacked. Several of the vessels that have been hijacked are Greek flagged, and Greece is a member of NATO, yet the US Navy doesn't get involved.

 

[Grumpybear]

During the 1980s, the Kuwaiti government requested that the United States Navy provide escorts for its oil tankers to deter Iranian attacks. The United States required that the tankers be reflagged as US vessels before they would do this.

It is surprising to me that the US Navy doesn't get involved when the vessels of allied countries are attacked. Several of the vessels that have been hijacked are Greek flagged, and Greece is a member of NATO, yet the US Navy doesn't get involved.

Perhaps the US is tiring of doing all the work from which its allies benefit without ever putting that much on the line? Being Top Nation is not that much fun, as Britannia found in the nineteenth century e.g trying single handed to stamp out the slave trade.

 

[Koeketiene]

It is surprising to me that the US Navy doesn't get involved when the vessels of allied countries are attacked. Several of the vessels that have been hijacked are Greek flagged, and Greece is a member of NATO, yet the US Navy doesn't get involved.

As I said before, the US focus in the area is on Iran.
And, to be honest, the US Navy is not really who you want to show up when you're in a piracy situation. As the SY QUEST disaster clearly demonstrated.

 

[flipper]

There are loads of companies doing on board marine security. Mostly made up of ex RM and SF.

http://marinesecurityinternational.com/?page_id=59

A lot safer than doing private security in Iraq or Afghanistan.

 

[dharl]

A couple of years ago I worked out the costing for running a simular operation. It very quickly was easy to see that it would not make economic sense to do this. 4 Armed guards for a IOR transit are still not cheap but certainly more affordable.

It's not the flag of the vessel that defines what sort of an armoury you are allowed to carry. In international waters you could have an anti aircraft gun bolted to your foredeck if you fancied it.

Flag very much do have a say in what goes on a merchant ship, International waters or not! There are three main parties involved when talking about putting armed security on a vessel, Flag state, Class society and P&I (Insurence). Flag is the top dog, if they say no, then your are LEGALLY not allowed to do anything.

work with for international company which has many different flagged ships under their control and part of my job is to arrange MARSEC in both IOR and also far worse WAF. More vessels have been taken in the Gulf of Guina then over the other side. Local pirates there dont mind having a fire fight with armed guards to get on board either.

As been mentioned earlier if you sort out the land bases then the problem will decline.

 

[Bajansailor]

Here is another Firm who provide onboard armed security for ships in troublesome areas - http://www.barantas.co.nz/

I used to get their weekly newsletters, and the going rate was about US$ 25,000 for their team to be on board a ship for 3 days while it went past Somalia.
There are others as well, like what Flipper mentioned above, and these firms are probably the main reason why successful attacks on ships have decreased significantly.
They are much more cost effective than sending escort ships.

 

[Koeketiene]

There are loads of companies doing on board marine security. Mostly made up of ex RM and SF.

http://marinesecurityinternational.com/?page_id=59

A lot safer than doing private security in Iraq or Afghanistan.

Here is another Firm who provide onboard armed security for ships in troublesome areas - http://www.barantas.co.nz/

Two friends of mine left the navy in the last 2 years to join such firms.
One now is a pub landlord in Plymouth and the other now works in a DHL logistics centre.

Truth be known, most such outfits struggle to find customers, because... the Ukranians/Russians have arrived 'en masse'.
And they work at a fraction of what a western ex-SF member would expect to make.

There are others as well, like what Flipper mentioned above, and these firms are probably the main reason why successful attacks on ships have decreased significantly.
They are much more cost effective than sending escort ships.

They have contributed, but are not the main reason.
The main reason, IMO, was the fact that naval forces have now been allowed to go after/destroy pirate facilities ashore. Likewise whalers/skiffs used by pirates.
Combine this with the work done with key leaders and village elders ashore. Locals have been known to chase pirates away.
And following recent elections a stable, functioning government is starting to emerge.
Work ashore is mostly conducted 'on the quiet', but it is starting to pay dividends.

We're not there yet, but we're (very) close.

 

[TimBennet]

Two friends of mine left the navy in the last 2 years to join such firms.
One now is a pub landlord in Plymouth and the other now works in a DHL logistics centre.

Truth be known, most such outfits struggle to find customers, because... the Ukranians/Russians have arrived 'en masse'.
And they work at a fraction of what a western ex-SF member would expect to make.

Quite. Hence the quote from one security executive who said they thought it was going to be their next Eldorado and it's turned out to be more like WallMart.

The change in conditions internally within Somalia is the only solution that's going to be anywhere near 100% effective. I'm afraid all the Rambo fantasists are going to have to find somewhere else to imagine they can 'sort out'.

 

[alan_d]

Being Top Nation is not that much fun, as Britannia found in the nineteenth century e.g trying single handed to stamp out the slave trade.

... and the opium trade. O no, hang on, we were promoting that weren't we?

 

[Grumpybear]

... and the opium trade. O no, hang on, we were promoting that weren't we?

And your point is?

 

[alan_d]

And your point is?

I see how you got your user-name.

My point (which I am surprised requires elaboration) is that Top Nations may present themselves as altruistically filling the role of world policeman, but are prone to acting unethically in pursuit of their own interests. I am sure people will be able to think of more recent examples than the Opium Wars.

 

[Jamesuk]

A Private British navy to help combat piracy... Why cant the Royal Navy do it?!

www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/news/uk_news/Defence/article1189106.ece

Pete

I read in Dockwalk that a Russain Superyacht filled with ex KGB allow pirate hunting off the coast of africa to find them and shoot at them true or not.

Private navy sounds good, sponsored by Tesco

 

[Koeketiene]

I read in Dockwalk that a Russain Superyacht filled with ex KGB allow pirate hunting off the coast of africa to find them and shoot at them true or not.

Somali Cruises

 

[davidfox]

There are loads of companies doing on board marine security. Mostly made up of ex RM and SF.

http://marinesecurityinternational.com/?page_id=59

A lot safer than doing private security in Iraq or Afghanistan.

The only problem is that the food is rubbish I hear.