Somali Pirates
 

I see from today's Torygraph that Royal Dutch Shell want the Royal Navy to launch military action against new pirate motherships off Somalia. In the last few days a Greek supertanker carrying Kuwati oil to the USA was seized.

This was one day after an Italian tanker was taken.

Is there something missing here?

A lot of oil?

Yes the will by spineless governments to deal with the matter properly in case the huggy fluffs start screaming about human rights. Countries like Russia, who don't give a toss about world opinion and deal with the matter by blasting the pirates out of the water if they attack, don't have their ships molested any more.

@ Pontious Navigator,

The ships might be of foreign ownership, the crews another nationality and the cargo due for multiple destinations, and owned by a totally different organisation.

For instance Shell might charter a greek owned tanker, registered in Monrovia that is crewed by Norwegians, Brits and Filipinos. The oil Shell wants carried might be from a Saudi oilfield and hence will be 50/50 Saudi/ Shell owned. The oil may be destined for the UK and other destinations, particularly after having been refined at a single location. Shell also have different charter contracts that share risk in differing ways and amounts.

Therefore a request for UK force protection is not as daft as it might first appear.

Hval

Since when have those sitting at desks had anything other than warm @rses and the colour of the office curtains and carpets as a priority.

@ Avitor

Don't you like the floor length, velvet, Barbie pink curtains in my office?

Hval

What we need is an MPA so that a large area of ocean can be covered quickly to locate these to$$ers and then vector warships, helicopters and ribs in to 'deal' with them :ok:

Ahh, I see a problem there - well done Cameron :ugh:

MadMark!!! :mad:

Well I wouldn't expect much as a kn0b of a Wg Cdr on the Today programme last week was talking about the Pirates 'business model' - wtf? Staff school bollox

I got only as far north as Newcastle and saw enough. I thought about foraging further north but I had a feeling that agoraphobia was about to strike - as well as fear - and thought better of it. Have fun.... :ok:

As RDS has its registered office on the banks of the Thames and is a large constituent of the London Stock Exchange then I don't think its unreasonable for them to ask the Royal Navy to assist in providing a bit of safety in the worlds shipping lanes.

That of course was one of the original reasons for having a strong navy, to protect British shipping anywhere in the world as it sailed around the Empire.

Seeing as we do the whole net centric thing so well these days, witht he advent of killer UAVs etc, what would be wrong with those Gimpy/minigun/40mm auto grenade launchers aimed with CCTV and monitored via satlink? as soon as we are within ROE, the military could engage targets from the tanker. The tanker companies could cover the install and maintainance cost, governments the manning and ROE, the pirates get wasted.

I have seen CCTV aimed weapons all over MRAP, all it takes is the "next step", IE satlink to the CCTV and weapon aiming.

Would seem to solve a lot of problems and means you dont need the boots on the ground to drill 7.62mm holes in these F*ckers. Skipper could even have a panic alarm.

Gun boats at the ready!
 

I can see the request from on high for some protection in this area that is troubled by pirates....................... "send a frigate or two & one of those long range jets as air support"

"Errrr minister we can only find a minesweeper with air support if we are very lucky from a C130 that we have diverted from another trouble spot".

"well why are there no long range jets avalable?"

"minister you orderd them to be chopped up last week!"

Pirates Business Model
 

@ pma 32dd,

The Wg Cdr wasn't as off target as one might believe. A couple of links for you. Have pasted one article and put a link to the second one, from the Financial Times.

From Wired

The rough fishermen of the so-called Somali coast guard are unrepentant criminals, yes, but they're more than that. They're innovators. Where earlier sea bandits were satisfied to make off with a dinghy full of booty, pirates who prowl northeast Africa's Gulf of Aden hold captured ships for ransom. This strategy has been fabulously successful: The typical payoff today is 100 times what it was in 2005, and the number of attacks has skyrocketed.
Like any business, Somali piracy can be explained in purely economic terms. It flourishes by exploiting the incentives that drive international maritime trade. The other parties involved — shippers, insurers, private security contractors, and numerous national navies — stand to gain more (or at least lose less) by tolerating it than by putting up a serious fight. As for the pirates, their escalating demands are a method of price discovery, a way of gauging how much the market will bear.
The risk-and-reward calculations for the various players arise at key points of tension: at the outset of a shipment, when a vessel comes under attack, during ransom negotiations, and when a deal is struck. As long as national navies don't roll in with guns blazing, the region's peculiar economics ensure that most everyone gets a cut.
All of which makes daring rescues, like the liberation in April of the Maersk Alabama's captain, the exception rather than the rule. Such derring-do may become more frequent as public pressure builds to deep-six the brigands. However, the story of the Stolt Valor, captured on September 15, 2008, is more typical. Here's how it played out, along with the cold, hard numbers that have put the Somali pirate business model at the center of a growth industry.

Second article from the Financial Times

This is a good article worth a read. Can't cut and paste due to copyright reasons.

Hval

From the same paper.


British Aid Holds Terrorists & Pirates at Bay


“This is not just aid from Britain; it is aid for Britain too. Our aid to Somalia [Somaliland] is helping to make Britain safer, because conflict doesn’t just claim innocent lives in Somalia [Somaliland]; it also leads to international problems like piracy, migration and terrorism. None of these will be solved without tackling their root causes: ongoing instability and extreme poverty.”— U.K.’s International Development Secretary, Andrew Mitchell.

Selective quotation!
 

I think what is missing is what he actually said!

'Speaking on behalf of BSC members, he said international naval forces, including the Royal Navy, need to attack the giant floating bases, which have recently enabled pirates to threaten an area of the sea the size of the United States'.

That's a bit different from how this thread was started isn't it? He was asking for action from international forces not just the Royal Navy. Fair enough idea I would have thought (not that it's a new idea of course, and neither are mother ships, but if anyone thinks an international task organisation is going to authorise the use of deadly force on mother ships they really have no idea about the way things are done and probably won't know what POLADs LEGADs or ROE really are either.

While I am here by the way, on one of the few occasions kinetic action was taken by a unit (outwith an international task force) a crew of 20 odd innocent Thai fishermen died.

Unfortunately charging around shooting people isn't the way to solve the problem. It, and the issues that gave rise to it, have to be tackled at source and the truth is that it's probably easier to allow companies to shell out a few million every now and then than to open what would be a huge can of worms by trying to sort Somalia out.

Pirates = Live targets

Collateral damage? Yes. So... I am not really bothered. No. Please now tell me that the Somalis will withdraw their diplomatic missions from the UK. Even better. To get more targets, make sure "Trackers" are fitted to all top end Mercedes and Toyotas sold in Africa.

Extreme? Very. Will the lesson be learnt? Yes, very quickly or Darwinism will take it's course. Oh, and while we are at it, the targeting of the pirates appears to be very specific. So why don't we get our gifted and clever MI5/6 to find the information source and arrange for it to be silenced? Maybe those providing the information might like to go fishing, say in the Indian Ocean?

PM

My scepticism was obviously missed.

In the article quoted the only direct British mention was the Royal Navy. The only direct link was that Shell had an office on the Thames. The only indirect link mentioned is .

There is a possibility that oil bought by a part British company that I part own in a ship that might have a British crew members might be hijacked.

There is an equal possibilty that a cruise ship manned by British officers, carrying British passengers also part owned by me might also be at risk.

Why was there no appeal by RDS to European States such as Italy and Greece or to the navies of Saudi Arabia, Yemen or Dubai? Or even to the owners of the oil - the USA?

Why us?

@ Piltdown Man,

This might be desirable, but the majority of Security Service, GCHQ and Secret Intelligence Service are otherwise engaged. I am not sure how good our Somali humint is either; I suspect that it is not good.

To increase humint and other intel data levels would require further budget increases, above and beyond what has already occurred. With current budgetary restrictions I believe (my own opinion) that this is unlikely to happen. Providing aid to Somali military and police is a cheaper option, with less direct hazards to UK security. Also the Somalis are not as restricted in how they gather "information". Human Rights don't apply.

I do not necessarily agree with this conclusion as I believe national security to be paramount. Unfortunately the Coalition Government would appear to disagree.

Hval

baffy thank you for sourcing the original quote. As I said 'the Torygraph'. Obviously an editorial axe grinder was at work.

Concerted international action is certainly required. There is a solution that would avoid friendly fire deaths, although not reprisal killings by the pirate, and the film 'Sink the Bismark' brings it to mind. Shoot out the rudder and propellor then they aren't going anywhere.

Portugese, Sweedish and Spannish MPA's have been in theatre on and off in recent years. Luxembourg MPRA's have been in theatre since Sept 09 pretty much non stop and hitting hard. Read the EU NAVFOR Somalia website. And they do have a complimentary Brit on the det apparently. So don't feel too bad.

and Saudi, UAE, Greek?

The list is long and distinguished!!!

Tonka, an interesting website little reported in the news and contradictory to that short report in the ST.

There are ships from many countries fighting Somali pirates. These nations include: -

USA
India
Russia
China
South Korea
France
Somalia
Spain
Germany
Greece
Sweden
Netherlands
Italy
Belgium
Malaysia
Pakistan
Singapore
Sweden
Thailand
Turkey
United Kingdom
Portugal
Luxembourg
Malta
Estonia
Norway
Croatia
Ukraine
Montenegro
Japan
Australia


The above list is not complete. The UK provides a HQ at Northwood for the Europeans. As might be seen, many nations are participating. Just not all the time and not with enough ships.

Hval

This might sound extremely naive but why aren''t escorted convoys at least being considered?

Convoys were tried in 2008, and are still used when the system would work. Reasons why convoys are not used as much as might be are:

a). Ships with perishable goods cant't wait around

b). The cost of running ships and the insurance cost for carried goods is extremely prohibitive and who would provide for a loss of income or for a price increase for goods in the Market place

c). Ships are coming from all over the place, where would they gather to form a convoy?

d). The area that the Somali pirates are operating is is so vast that some convoys would be starting in the piracy zone. Where would they gather? They would have to be individually escorted, taking vessels away from the mammoth task of hunting down pirate boats

e). There are not enough naval assets in position to implement a full convoy system

f). Remember that a convoy is only as good as the weakest link in the convoy. You all travel at one speed

g). How would a naval escort protect the convoy? ROE's are very prohibitive. If the convoy escorts are taken up searching potential pirate boats, other pirate boats could board the ships. I.E. Overwhelm the convoy protection with pirate boat numbers

h). If the convoy system works, Somali pirate attacks drop off. The navy protection system goes home, the Somali pirates start again.

i). Cost to the tax payer. Are you willing to subsidise others goods?

j). What about yachts?

k). Ships going to different destinations. In the large area the Somali pirates cover, the convoy routes would end up adding significant mileage and time to ships routes

l). Some destinations are within the Somali pirate zone. How do you manage this?

The above is a list that is incomplete, and may need further explanation, but hopefully suggests some of the issues.

Edited for typing errors and to add a further point.

What did we do the last time that merchant shipping was vulnerable to attack on the high seas?
Convoys.
Why not now?

EGTE

Ummm. I think a pretty comprehensive, and very informative answer was given in the post before yours.

Did you read it......? :rolleyes:

We could always bring back "Q" Ships.

@Cazatou,

There might be a number of legality issues with Q ships. Now don't quote me as I may be wrong; in fact I just looked up the relevant articles from here:-

Under the United Nations Convention on The Law of The Sea, all warships, when sailing in neutral or international waters must be identified as such.

Article 107 states that seizure on account of piracy may be carried out only by warships or military aircraft, or other ships or aircraft clearly marked and identifiable as being on government service and authorized to that effect.

Under Article 92 a ship may not change its flag during a voyage or while in a port of call, save in the case of a real transfer of ownership or change of registry.

Small victories though...

Raid on ship off Africa's east coast frees hostages held for three months | The Australian

As regards convoys, with a ship costing $20-30000 a day to run, and with margins already wafer thin there is a significant reluctance amongst most ship operators (with the exception of the state run fleets of China for example) to wait around for the forming of a convoy

National convoys are being regularly run through the Straits of Bab al Mandeb.

Merch

Yes, by Russia/ China etc.. who have a large State-run fleet and therefore less financial constraints; your average western charterer running a Liberian flagged bulker or tanker is operating on a margin that wont allow too much hanging around

hval

Fair enough - now what about DEMS.

Cazatou,

My apologies for not responding sooner.

Depends what you mean by Merchant ships. Now a days many merchant ships fly under foreign flags and have mixed nationality crews. Therefore laws apply.

Believe it or not the merchant ships may be armed, but most nations require export licences (for the weapons) for every country that the vessel might visit.

UNCLOS does state that every State may seize a pirate ship or aircraft, or a ship or aircraft taken by piracy and under the control of pirates, and arrest the persons and seize the property on board. I suppose a non military vessel might be issued with warrants that allow them to carry out anti piracy activities, but there might be some difficulties as a seizure on account of piracy may be carried out only by warships or military aircraft, or other ships or aircraft clearly marked and identifiable as being on government service and authorized to that effect.

One of the problems is do you mean small arms (shotguns, non automatic weapons and pistols) or something slightly more lethal? E.G. Bofors, missiles etc. A number of yachts (increasing in number as well) are carrying small arms to defend themselves.

There are some flags that prohibit the carriage of arms or the use of violence. There are also some insurers that will not accept it, and a ships insurance will be void if weapons are carried.

You will probably have read about Blackwater and their proposals.

Blackwaters' solution of vessels with armed persons on board is interesting. The Djibouti government have given Blackwater permission for the paramilitary operations to be based in the Port of Djibouti. Security of the ships weapons whilst in port are to be provided by Djibouti Navy. US Embassy officials have expressed concerns about the legality of the plan.

Mind you, would you wish to be protected by Blackwater? Their tendency to indiscriminate violence and the killing of civilians would, and does, scare me.

I also question the legality of Blackwaters solution.

For your interest read this

Possibly the best solution would be for the UN to pass a resolution allowing for "active" defence of ships by use of weapons. Only problem is controlling this. I also do not believe that use of military might is the total solution.

Cazatou, hopefully I have answered your question sufficiently. If not let me know. I could waffle on a lot more.


Hval

As I see it....some sovereign nation issues a Letter of Marque to an NGO who then can legally conduct anti-piracy operations against designated targets described within the Letter, using defined limits, and all is above board.

Take a few Frigates out of Mothballs....Bail them to the Contractor...lease the services of some B-212's with FLIR, Radar, Dillon Mini-guns, some Ma Deuce .50 cal's....former SEAL/SBS folks with RIBS.....and Bob's yer Uncle.

Pull alongside a boat with guns, boarding ladders, and other Pirate kit....and conduct business.

Sign me up!

@ SASless,

As long as the ship is clearly marked and identifiable as being on government service, you meet the necessary requirements; except for weapons licences etc. I am sure something could be worked out.

Only problem is that in the area that the pirates operate from, the number of countries, the length of coastline is absolutely vast. Also, recognising boats on piracy raids is not easy. You end up with a large percentage of false positives. Think of the number of ships required.

What is required is continuous MPA (not just one aircraft either), aircraft/ helicopter carriers which provide fast access to suspect vessels, fast patrol ships and RIBs that are able to access the suspect vessels, whilst they are still under surveillance, and extremely good, current HUMINT, including when mother ships and small boats exit and access ports.

Mind you the numbers of vessels and aircraft required would be prohibitively expensive.

Remember, blockading ports wont work. Practically any piece of coastline can be used as a port for small vessels.

Hval

Somali Pirates
 

Agreed that Port blockades will not work,as the smaller boats can be launched through the surf and the "mother ships" thereby serviced.Ports?There are Ports with cranes and things there?Could have fooled me.
There was some waffle from somewhere about the only way to fix this is to fix it from shoreward,outward and not from the sea.But it is clear,as written in one post,that the Russians,Chinese and Koreans seem to have little trouble with Piracy at Sea,possibly because they take no prisoners?
Every one talks about Law this and Law that and not being able to use Q Ships because of this and that Regulation,but surely one should consider fighting fire with fire?The UN seem to be powerless for some reason or another,and it seems that Ship-Owners are scared of having Teams onboard to repel boarders?
So where onwards....?A small nasty dusty lawless country holding the World to financial Ransom ?
And what of the guys that own and run the Suez who make billions out of that operation?Would one not have thought that they may be interested in keeping their custom rather than sending all the sheep around the Cape of Good Hope?
C`mon fellas----its time to think about this very carefully;Lethargy seems to be keeping the Pirates in business and they will continue in business as they are no longer News on CNN and BBC.......we will just accept the increased cost of shipping and in lives and push the problem under the bed----how weak and pathetic we have become...

How about a Geostationary Satellite monitoring the area in the vicinity of Somalia and a UN sponsored Multi National Anti - Piracy Task Force. This is not a UK problem - it is a UN problem.