Posted by Eagle1 in UncategorizedYou can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
What follows was originally posted on my home site on 6 April 09:
It’s been noted here (see here) and other places that the Somalia pirates have shifted some of their operations to a sea lane about 400 – 500 nautical miles off the east coast of Somalia. They are able to find ships in that area because despite the vast size of the Indian Ocean, most ships follow time tested routes that save time and fuel and carry them to ports. These routes are logical and well known.
Take a look at the nearby maps. At the top is an older map (Map 1) showing the dhow routes that have been sailed since ancient times. There’s a pattern to the flow of dhows. ***
The second map (Map 2) is my own presentation of modern sea lanes along the coast of east Africa – 
the red lines are the sea lanes. In the modern sea faring world ships, in theory, may have the freedom to choose their routes and the freedom of the open sea, etc, etc, but the practical reality is that merchant ships are driven by the cruel masters of time and money. For the owners of merchant ships time is money and any ship’s master who decides to wander all over the ocean instead of taking the shortest, fastest route from one port to another will quickly be out of a job. Since there can only be one “shortest, fastest, safest route between two ports” that route becomes a sea lane. The seemingly chaotic world of ocean shipping is in many ways quite predictable. It is this predictability that the Somali pirates now rely on.
Map 3 superimposes on those sea lanes the most recent ships attacks and hijackings. While the maps I used don’t mesh exactly (and I am too lazy to make them fit) the point I am making is clear. The pirate attacks happen along the sea lanes. Why? Because, to paraphrase Willie Sutton, “that’s where the ships are.”
Map 4 shows that the east African shipping route area is sprinkled with islands that must be avoided – again ensuring that the routes to be taken by merchant ships, yachts and fishing trawlers are 
predictable, and well known to crews of boats native to the area. Shipping transiting the area does not have unlimited sea room in which to maneuver.
Given all of the above, Somali pirates and their confederates may lie in wait along these predictable routes and wait for ships to come to them – as they inevitably will.
How do you thwart these pirates at sea? One possibility, in use in the Gulf of Aden, is to flood the sea lanes with sea policemen or naval forces who serve to deter or stops assaults on shipping in their beat area. Another possibility, especially when you have limited naval assets, and which is also in use in the Gulf of Aden, is to provide escorts to single or multiple ships as they transit the risk areas during periods when the pirates are likely to be active (low winds, day light hours or during periods of a bright moon) or escort ships that have proven to be at risk (low freeboard ships, slow transit speeds).
Put helicopters and UAVs in the air and learn the local fishing patterns to find the “fishing boats” that don’t acty like the others. Use the helicopters to scout routes ahead of merchant ships.
For the long transit down the eastern coast of Somalia, I propose a small variation on the convoy 
system. Points A, B and C on Map 5 become Ocean Convoy Collection Points (OCCPs) where ships desiring to transit piracy risk areas can gather for convoying to the other points.
Now, I know very well that what I said before about time and money are negative motivators for merchant ships to wait for convoys to be formed. And, after all, the odds of being nabbed by pirates are pretty slim. However, there are some risk adverse ship owners who will accept the convoys, especially if their insurance carrier will lower premiums for convoy participants.
I said it before and I’ll say it again – given a chance – convoys work.
And, if you aren’t going to invade Somalia to take out pirate havens, you don’t really have a lot of other options.
108 Responses to “How to Beat the Somali Pirates”
Leave a Reply
Recent Posts
Subscribe
- Checking the fathometer November 19, 2009For those who are not fully updated or familiar with the latest case of racial discrimination at the USNA, this time involving the Color Guard, please click here to get up to speed, and then come back. As former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum stated this morning in the Philidelpha Inquirer, ‘It’s not a critical national-security matter when [...] […]CDRSalamander
- The Coast Guard HH-65 started its lifecycle today November 19, 2009ften hailed as the “Tupper-Wolf,” or perhaps the plastic hanger queen in some situations, the Coast Guard’s HH-65 Dolphin airframe has become a staple of the Coast Guard image. And today in 1984 we, as the USCG, became the proud owners of the first accepted HH-65. Today as we make our way through the oft touted [...] […]Ryan Erickson
- Guest Post by Mike Walling: Coast Guard Forgotten History: A Tsarist Officer in the US Coast Guard November 18, 2009George Vladimirovich Stepanoff was born in Moscow, Russia on April 23, 1893. Little is known about his early years except that his parents were Vladimir and Katherine Stepanoff and, in 1919, he was an Imperial Russian Navy officer stationed on board a Second-class Russian cruiser (destroyer) in Vladivostok. During the Bolshevik Revolution Stepanoff remained […]Jim Dolbow
- New film about Pappy Boyington chronicles controversy over naming an airport after him November 17, 2009How do you properly honor a war hero who didn’t lead such an exemplary personal life? Can you separate a person’s professional legacy from that of his personal character? Col. Gregory “Pappy” Boyington, WWII Marine Corps ace fighter pilot, Medal of Honor recipient and former POW, displaying his skills and bravery on the battlefield, with [...] […]The Bunny
- 12th Annual American Veterans Center Conference November 16, 2009This past Friday I had the great opportunity of attending the 12th Annual American Veterans Center Conference at the Navy Memorial in Washington DC. With its mission to “preserve and promote the legacy of America’s servicemen and women from every generation,” the American Veterans Center had an amazing array of speakers. Moreover, my fellow attendees [...] […]jwithington
I Served on board USS Forrestal for 2 yrs, in the 60’s. Now days we cannot kill pirates who are armed and shooting at ships, and hijacking them. They even shooting at military ships and we let them go free. John Paul Jones would have a heart attack if he knew what are chicking shit navy is doing out there.
April 8th, 2009 at 11:29 pm“For the owners of merchant ships time is money and any ship’s master who decides to wander all over the ocean instead of taking the shortest, fastest route from one port to another will quickly be out of a job.”
This is misleading today. International shipping works at levels far below its capacity due to the international trade crisis and season.
Ships are being stored in harbours, can move slower to save fuel or even avoid canals to save fees.
Shorter routes are still preferable due to lower fuel costs, but your overall description is misleading.
@frank kisch: Nobody shot at a military ship and slipped away. They’re at a Kenyan court today.
April 9th, 2009 at 1:44 amBainbridge is a fitting namesake for this evolution…
April 9th, 2009 at 6:01 amEagle1 has some good ideas here. Might be an operational response that is effective.
But Frank also speaks the truth. These inane international conventions (on very thin legal ground) that have caused us to shy away from executing these pirates will mean that there is no real deterrent. If potential reward (fortunes beyond attainment in Somalia) outweigh the risks (catch and release), this problem will get worse. And the pirates will get bolder.
A few YouTube videos of pirate vessels (with pirates in them) being shot to pieces or of captured pirates swinging from the gibbet would raise the risk side of the risk/reward equation significantly.
April 9th, 2009 at 6:22 amBeing called in to “put out the fire” in this incident, after the pirates have a hostage is difficult to manage. But I observed this morning that the perception was from watching CNN that the hostage was in a “LifeRaft”. That is a perception issue, where people inside the Navy know that that vessel is a 28′ sea worthy craft, but the public envisions a yellow rubber open blow-up dinghy. Secondly, the public was howling for immediate action in the CNN callin.. the sentiment the same at home.
This is difficult, and seen on TV.
As a suggestion two photos would be helpful for the press, one of the lifeboat and a second of the lifeboat with the destroyer in view. This puts the story into more accurate portrayal.
In addition there is a popular and romanticized image of pirates in the publics mind, walking the plank, etc… and then the very real realities of the current situation.
However this issue will probably be the litmus for how the Navy and the Obama administration will be remembered in the most recent high visibility ‘crisis.’ While seasoned mariners see this as not a crisis the public will probably not. This is hitting the psyche more so than say North Korean missle launches.
What the Navy needs to do is decide what their public statement is on this issue, be aware that the perception of a destroyer sitting next to a ‘rubber dinghy’ impotent is not good, and of course manage to make this all good.. and provide an escapist ending for the US public.
That all said.. If I were held captive I would want the USN there working in my behalf. But the reason I posted was to not under estimate the public’s consumption of the event and to deal with the PR effectively.
That ain’t no rubber dinghy with a destroyer along side doing nothing… a small group of pirates is not fending off the US navy.. perception is reality and pirates have their place in popular culture.
God Speed, make good..
April 9th, 2009 at 9:24 am[...] How to Beat the Somali Pirates | USNI BlogFor the long transit down the eastern coast of Somalia, I propose a small variation on the convoy system. Points A, B and C on Map 5 become Ocean Convoy Collection Points (OCCPs) where ships desiring to transit piracy risk areas can …http://blog.usni.orgGlobal News | World | InternationalSomalia (see map below) is the world’s most spectacularly failed state, a deadly maelstrom into which few foreign journalists, aid workers or analysts dare step. Information is hard to come by and harder still to verify. …http://www.globalpost.comThreatsWatch.Org: Commentary: Somali Piracy: A SolutionThe news of an American vessel, the Maersk Alabama, being boarded and commandeered by pirates off the coast of Somalia has brought the Somali piracy issue to the front burner for Americans. …. Somalia. Somalia View Full Size Map …http://threatswatch.org [...]
April 9th, 2009 at 9:36 amAgree wholeheartedly with Dee regarding the public affairs component to the Maersk Alabama and to piracy in general.
But there is a larger strategic question I posed in an entry over at my blog. We can commit to convoy operations and do more to prevent piracy – that would certainly help the Navy’s image in the American psyche. But do we want to commit to having X number of ships off the coast of Somalia indefinitely? The fleet is small enough and has enough requirements as is.
What I’m driving at is that the problem will not end until we have boots on the ground in Somalia. The same was true of the Barbary Pirates. As long as Somalia is a “failed state” (a term which I think is incredibly generous at this juncture), there will be a persistent maritime security problem at a vital choke point. The Navy can, at best, prevent most attacks though a resource-intensive commitment of ships. But pirates need ports to launch from, gather provisions and armaments, and launder their money. Any long term solution involves getting in there and getting our hands dirty.
As in the Barbary Wars, I say “Send in the Marines!”
April 9th, 2009 at 9:40 ambuffalo,
Your assertion that Somalia is a “failed state” may be argued to be a very Western view. As long as the piracy keeps bringing in riches that sustain those in power, the would not by any means consider themselves a failed state.
One of our great shortcomings with situations such as this is that we see the world and the opposition only through occidental lenses. The concept of the Westphalian nation-state in its modern form is nearly unknown in many areas of the globe, particularly Africa and the Middle East. The idea that a national power structure is in place to provide safety, security, and services for its populace, and somehow answers to that populace for accountability is a fairly narrow Western European ideal.
If we send in the Marines, to what end do we do so? If it is with the idea of killing these people, then why don’t we kill them at sea? That way they are already gathered up in convenient little containers (boats).
Seriously, if we do not want to commit to a Navy presence there indefinitely, can we do so with a proportionately smaller Marine Corps, which is already fairly heavily employed elsewhere?
April 9th, 2009 at 10:01 ama point of view espoused by the international lawyers is that until an american ship with an american crew is attacked we don’t have a dog in this fight.
that is all changed.
now if the canoe club doesn’t rectify the situation within a day they are inept and incapable. dosen’t matter that the area is bigger than continental US and that even fast ships take ten hours or so to reach the scene, the european press will beat the gang up.
it looks as though the boys should be hunting “motherships”. possibly the army might be encouraged to complete its “unfinished business in mogadishu then do some work up and down the coast.
its not as if they don’t already dislike us. they simply smile and dance on the chance that we might drop a few hundred or thousand dollar bills as we pass.
C
April 9th, 2009 at 11:03 amA convoy system is a good response to the piracy threat. However, “A few YouTube videos of pirate vessels (with pirates in them) being shot to pieces or of captured pirates swinging from the gibbet would raise the risk side of the risk/reward equation significantly” would condemn the US Navy as racist in the eyes of the world. White sailors would be seen shooting or hanging black pirates. It would be Abu Ghraib all over again. Jefferson did not need to concern himself with cell phone cameras watching the US Navy’s every move against the Barbary Pirates. He simply sent in the Marines, and the rest is history: “To the shores of Tripoli.” A convoy system is a good and fairly passive compromise solution. The speedboats are no match for a minesweeper, much less a frigate or a destroyer.
April 9th, 2009 at 11:22 amURR, from a philosophical point of view, I find a lot to agree with you regarding Western notions of the nation-state. We should indeed be wary of what notions we apply to other peoples with different traditional views of governance.
However, the reality is that we can’t even hope for an end to the piracy problem unless there is some party that has overall responsibility for law and order in a region, with whom we can conduct diplomatic relations, and is accoutnable for the conduct of its consitutent people. A government of some kind – any kind – and a state are the only solutions that I can think of.
If we’re content to let the Somali status quo continue (which is a plausible option) and merely mitigate the effects of piracy, then we have to be willing to invest the right force structure on a continual basis dedicated for that task alone. And we – the American people – have to understand that 1) our commitment in the region has no forseeable end (even if we kill every pirate we see, the potential reward is still incredibly high) and 2) even the strongest commitment of ships will not stop 100% of attacks (not every ship of every flag will have an escort).
As long as those are acceptable, then we can accomodate differing notions of statehood. I suppose the nation will have to find some consensus on these issues.
April 9th, 2009 at 11:26 am“As long as those are acceptable, then we can accomodate differing notions of statehood. I suppose the nation will have to find some consensus on these issues.”
Excellent observations. As is your point about proper force structure. Though I might add that killing every pirate we find might do more than a little to cool enthusiasm. Piracy here has been a constant for centuries, ditto Malacca Straits. Not sure we ever end it. But if we can keep it down to a limited level, and let future groups considering such actions understand that we will do what it takes.
April 9th, 2009 at 11:51 amThere is a more economical solution for protecting the small number of American ships in the area, put a squad of Marines on board for the time they transit the danger areas. If they just ambush the pirates after they start their attack, it will be self defense, no one could object, there will be no question that they were innocent fishermen, and soon they would learn not to attack American shipping.
Obviously we have ambitions of protecting more than just American shipping, but that should be first priority, particularly when they are under charter to the US government.
After that, if history has any lessons, convoying is much more effective than patroling.
April 9th, 2009 at 12:10 pmIn african waters, the parallels with the first two decades of the 19th century are delicious. We are firmly on the path to repeat the experience, let us hope we do half as well as our ancestors, both in the fleet and at the apex of the Navy Department.
What value is a Navy which cannot muster enough low end corvettes to escort the republic’s own shipping past a nest of backwoods pirates? What value is a naval establishment that cannot correct such an outrage?
The time for “not my job” would seem to have ended. The mind set of what is approaching a generation of naval “downsizing”, in plain words – decline), simply will not do.
Interesting times coming.
April 9th, 2009 at 12:24 pmIt is ridiculous that we have a 300+ ship Navy and cannot protect the few commercial vessels under our flag. Everything does not have to cost $1 Billion and have AEGIS to be useful. Problem is, Navy shipbuilding couldn’t replicate a PT boat for under $100 million nowadays.
April 9th, 2009 at 12:41 pmI think that Chuck Hill has the right idea. Create a subscription service. Any ship transiting the area can subscribe, there will be a service fee. Ships who subscribe will pick up a well-armed heavy squad of Marines either in the Gulf of Eden, Gulf of Oman, or around Madagascar. The squad consists of a junior grade officer, E7 or E8 NCO, medical, communications specialists, and one or two heavy fire teams. The ship provides sleeping space and food. When they leave the area of risk, the Marines cycle back to shore for rest, rearm, and transport. This duty is considered a combat assignment for the Marines. Underway logistical and dustoff support is provided by US Navy helicopter and patrolling ships. This strategy assumes that a ship has the right to defend itself from pirate attack. If that is not true, it should be. Ships and owners are not compelled to subscribe. In the event of an attack, subscribers will receive priority for support. This seems pretty obvious to me, so there must be something wrong with it.
April 9th, 2009 at 1:09 pmBefore we indict the Navy for not responding, it should be remembered that the Armed Forces are subject to their civilian masters. It is from Washington DC and the Executive and Legislative branches that the power derives to the military. It can be good leadership, or bad, but the decision must be theirs.
Somalia: what are the choices? You could kill every living man, woman and child, and solve your problem. You could kill every pirate, but you’d STILL have people trying to catch ships. Somewhere in the middle there’s an answer, and my guess is that it will be an ugly one that no one nation will want to take on, even with the help of other nations.
April 9th, 2009 at 1:39 pm“You could kill every pirate, but you’d STILL have people trying to catch ships.”
Yeah, but not as many. And with dimmed enthusiasm.
April 9th, 2009 at 2:13 pmThis may be simplistic, and I accept that. However, this seems to be the prime type of mission for the SEALs. Let the “impotent” destroyer sit there minding the above the waterline store. The SEALs could board that vessel and kill every one of those terrorists. If anything in the SEAL team 6 credo is to be believed, that’s what that unit was designed to do. Once the ship is re-taken, have someone with a camera go on-board and video tape every one of those killed (in the spirit of a very public execution). Afterward, film the very public “burial at sea”. The US Navy, just as it’s sister services, is not a police force. It is a hammer. Policy is not made or decided by the warriors involved. However, if a statement must be made, I say make a very memorable one…then move on to the next mission. In the end, we aren’t dealing with a few non-descript pirates. What we’re dealing with is a complete sense of anarchy within Somalia. The problem is way beyond the high tide line. The only thing that will correct this issue, permanently, is what caused the end of the Barbary Coast pirates…a strong government dedicated to taking the hand of thieves, the head of murderers, and then acceptance into the circle of civilized nations. Education of their people as to what’s happening over the horizon, and giving their young men more choices than terrorism as a means of “keeping food on the table” for their families, is the ONLY real fix to this issue.
April 9th, 2009 at 2:23 pmI’d agree with you, except that history has told me otherwise. How many Somalis showed up to get slaughtered as we extracted the Rangers and Deltas out of the Mog? Not once, not when they were getting cut down like wheat, did they slow down, not until the streets ran red with blood.
These people will not stop over a handful of bodies. Not until they have NO bodies, and I don’t think any government is going to try that one.
April 9th, 2009 at 3:24 pmByron,
We will have to agree to disagree on that. I believe it is specifically tied to a primal cost-benefit analysis. Make it dangerous enough, and the chances of success slim enough, and it will lose its romance.
And there’s always the thirty megaton high burst.
April 9th, 2009 at 3:29 pmOkay, so maybe slinging nukes is COA 2….
April 9th, 2009 at 3:39 pmNukes are hardly required. The pirates are in small boats – a very concentrated target. And there aren’t that many boats. Chuck Hill’s on target (so to speak). A few marines significantly change the equation – and the idea that this (adventurers striking opportunistically) is equivalent to Mogadishu (where they saw themselves as defending a homeland) seems a stretch. Armed UAVs could accomplish something similar at a still lower cost, with the UAVs intervening once the attack started.
Up the negative costs and the attraction of piracy as an enterprise drops. Unlike Mogadishu, this is governed by business decisions.
April 9th, 2009 at 5:48 pmIt’s a good thing that sailors didn’t wait around for Obama to save them. Can’t you just see it: Stop right now or I’ll ask the U.N. to remind the “international community” that “the U.S. is not at war with Somali pirates.”
April 9th, 2009 at 6:42 pmGallatin,
I was kidding about the nukes, mostly anyway. But I beg to differ. There are hundreds and hundreds of boats. And a fishing boat full of pirates looks an awful lot like a fishing boat full of fishermen. UAVs and other remote sensors cannot glean intent very well. My guess is that ROE will dictate a much more stringent ID of target than those platforms will give before we engage.
How many is a “few” Marines? Will this be a regiment’s worth, divided into squads trained to repel boarders or vessel takedown?
But your last statement is one I can definitely agree on. This is a capital-generating venture for them.
April 9th, 2009 at 9:12 pmcan predators work from the air? can they not only see these pirates’ vessels but also shoot at them, as they do autos on land? can they be launched from ships?
April 9th, 2009 at 9:55 pmwhen pirates capture a ship:
first, send the Navy to follow and overtake the ship. Then immediateey sink the pirate’s boat so that the pirate’s are stuck on board the captured ship-where their fate is tied to the fate of the captured ship.(they are all in the same boat with few options)
second: the Navy simply follows the pirated ship to shore, arrests and summarily hangs the pirates.
If the Navy arrives before the ship is actually boarded by the pirates, simply blow the pirates out of the water and let the sharks take care of them.
I guarantee if we followed this plan piracy would quickly beome a thing of the past.
As for the current hostage situation. send one sharp shooter afor each pirate, coordinate them to fire on say the count of three, and thus killing each pirate simultaneously. Then bring the captain back on board and continue their voyage, with no fanfare.
Unfortunately our prez and sec of state are wimps- so the USA will be humiliated by a few subnubian ragamuffins while the world and other would be pirates watch.
dan cucich
April 10th, 2009 at 1:34 amI wish I had a nickel for everyone who so far thinks:
1. Resolution of this is easy.
2. It works out just fine, every time, like in a movie.
3. That by killing a few pirates, that fear will simply de-motivate them.
To mitigate the risk, the commercial shipping companies need to engage private security on their “high value” ships.
April 10th, 2009 at 6:50 amJay,
Your last point is an EXCELLENT one. But I would tell you that you don’t kill “a few” pirates. You kill a lot of pirates. As above, make risk high and chance of success small.
We shall see how many nations/shipping firms are willing to ante up for proper security.
April 10th, 2009 at 6:54 amUm, did everyone forget what Eagle1 said about ports of call that do not allow the ship to have firearms? That’s the first thing that needs to be addressed, along with a plan that could be vetted by Lloyds of London to cover hiring security teams (how about retired SPECWAR types?) to board during transit then fly back once out of the danger zone. Then it would be up to the master of the ship as to what would happen to any pirates
April 10th, 2009 at 7:03 amByron,
You are correct regarding Eagle’s point. The firearms issue is what is used as a premise to not have security. But pressure from ships’ owners, firms, and national governments could change that, no?
This was an issue a couple of years ago in a NWC game I facilitated. I guess resolving it will require sufficient pain or loss of revenue.
April 10th, 2009 at 7:29 amThis is a good post; the link to the convoy discussion is particularly informative.
April 10th, 2009 at 7:34 amAs everyone continues the debate, it might be instructive to reflect on how Indonesia, Malaysia and Singapore regained control of the Straits of Malacca and its approaches when a particularly violent form of piracy was on the rise in the South China Sea, the Andaman Sea and the Straits during the 1980s and 90s.
Very different conditions exist in the waters off Somalia and its environs to be sure, but recent history can, and should, inform us today. All the best, JCHjr
Good thoughts, Admiral. As you note, the comparison is not direct, since the Malacca discussion begins with something like “The three non-failed states along the Strait…”
April 10th, 2009 at 7:40 amVADM Harvey, glad to see you drop by! I’d also add that part of the problem is that in this situation there are no states that feel that they have either the resources or the desire to become involved with the problem.
URR, I suspect in time it will. I also expect when the pirates butcher a crew that the situation will change drastically, but for now, they are playing it smart (with respect to how they look to the global media).
April 10th, 2009 at 8:15 amByron makes a GREAT and salient point. This is not a bunch of ragtag thugs, appearances notwithstanding. They are savvy and have walked just on the other side of the line for generations.
If the CTF 151 nations were as savvy, there would be images of RPGs being fired, damage to vessels being documented, names and faces of merchant sailors killed at the hands of these pirates all over the world visual media.
April 10th, 2009 at 8:33 amJay:
“1. Resolution of this is easy.”
It isn’t easy. But I refuse to accept assertions that the military cannot do anything and that nobody can do anything but “accept”. Pirates are getting wealthy stealing our stuff and we are paying them to do it. What is wrong with this picture? We do not have to kill them to fix this but it is clear that we have to do something — they are having way too much fun and now they are having fun even faster than before.
“2. It works out just fine, every time, like in a movie.”
Mistakes will be made — even some crimes — but mostly just mistakes. Is there some reason that we can’t keep the little boats away from the big boats? Life isn’t a movie, thank God. If one is inside a crisis, it is a lot harder to figure out what is happening than looking at the crisis from a distance. Know that and behave like reasonable people.
“3. That by killing a few pirates, that fear will simply de-motivate them.”
Killing people is almost always bad — that is hard to back away from. Killing insurgents rarely ends a conflict; I suspect that killing pirates will not end this one. But engaging them with “tasteful” intent is likely to be even more dangerous and we already know what “not engaging them” gets us — this conversation. My police friends refer to this sort of thing as “social”; my military friends as “kinetic”. Piracy is an action. Make the counter-action unpredictable except that it is always unpleasant.
“To mitigate the risk, the commercial shipping companies need to engage private security on their “high value” ships.”
In a post above, I said to use US Marines for this duty — same idea, give the ships some teeth to defend themselves.
If I cannot bring firearms into your port, maybe I offload the firearms at sea or maybe I offload cargo to small boats offshore or maybe I just skip your port or maybe I lock them securely with a guard while in your port. I suspect that a Marine would never intentionally sell or lose his weapon — it would take too long to do the paperwork.
April 10th, 2009 at 12:16 pmCheck out CNN, a hostage (french?) just died while french navy trying to rescue (I think…first reports are always hazy).
Richard — I don’t think this a mission that the Marines need foised upon them. If anything, build up the Navy MAA force & stick some GMs on board each ship.
However, I doubt you’ll find much support (DoD) to put US personnel on ships that aren’t a. chartered to carry mostly or all DoD cargo or 2. are not owned by DoD.
Looks like the Maersk ship may have been carrying USAID cargo. Is USAID cargo high value? It ain’t DoD…
Should the US government, in this case, likely USAID, require the companies to have private security to safeguard the cargo & the ship if they carry any US government cargoes?
Is this only for US flagged ships only? (Foreign flags do sometimes carry US DoD cargo…) More to follow.
April 10th, 2009 at 12:34 pmAm I the only person reading this who is embarrassed by our apparent impotence here? Disgusted by all the effort to find reasons to do nothing? Confounded by the quantity of process and rule-making and “guidelines” thrown around to avoid taking a chance to find a solution — any kind of solution? Mystified by the effort to apologize for wanting freedom of the seas to mean the same thing for everyone? I served my years in green clothes and I have watched this malaise overcome us. What have we become? And why?
April 10th, 2009 at 12:44 pmRichard, because we don’t want to embarrass ourselves in the court of global media. It’s NOT the military that’s at fault here. They serve civilian masters. Be embarrassed for them instead.
April 10th, 2009 at 1:04 pm“It’s NOT the military that’s at fault here. They serve civilian masters. Be embarrassed for them instead.”
A-MEN. But you can be sure they will beat the dog they kept on a short chain outside because we didn’t stop the burglars from getting in the house.
April 10th, 2009 at 1:44 pmI do not think that the military is at fault. I agree with UltimaRatioReg who says that “they will beat the dog they kept on a short chain”. Since he wears green camo and belongs to a combat unit in Iraq, one of my kids will indirectly receive that beating. I do not know if the US military could have done something to make a difference.
Since I did not participate before, I am partly to blame. Hence I am embarrassed.
If you don’t like this experience, would you change it?
If you would change it, how would you change it? Think of it like a game. What would try to achieve, what is important to you, what pieces would you use, what pieces do the other guys have, how would you pay for your pieces, and how would your pieces move or behave? How would the other guys behave? Would you try to join with friends or go it alone? What would you do if one of your “friends” opposed your ideas or actions?
Using the rules you wrote, predict results then evaluate your results using actual historical events — preferably from the last week or month and local to the western Indian Ocean and the Gulfs of Oman and Aden. Starting from initial reality, does your model predict behavior that you want?
Review this blog chain for rules and things that you must and cannot do — the list is long. There are many other requirement. Would you try to change that list?
I note with great sadness and some admiration that the French government did a very difficult thing and one of the good guys was killed. The French people will beat up the French government for losing a hostage. The French government knew that this might happen but they did it anyway. While it may be unpopular to remember this in the US, the French have paid a very heavy price in blood and treasure for their country and for their principles.
April 10th, 2009 at 2:41 pmIn terms of putting marines on every American flag ship. I think we should do it for free. It’s value added because you flag the ship in the US, and protecting American lives and property is what we do. Those American owned ships that are foreign flagged should ask Monrovia for help.
Doubt the the marines would have any problem doing this and for the small numbers involved, even the Coast Guard has people who can do this. A detachment of about 10 ought to work nicely. Night vision devices, to make sure they can’t sneak up on the ship, a machine gun, a LAW, and a .50 cal sniper rifle–to disable the skiff’s engine would come in handy.
It is way cheaper than having a ship provide escort at probably a minimum of $200K a day.
Other alternatives:
April 10th, 2009 at 4:32 pm1) Establish a protected lane, avoiding fishing area as much as possible to avoid confusing prirates with fishermen, or
2) Regularly scheduled convoys, but expect that the speeds are going to be relatively low, say 12 knots, which won’t set well with shippers.
As for how to deal with the current situation, SEALs swimming to the boat and thowing a flash-bang grenade in, in the middle of the night after an extended period of wearing down the pirates might be a good start toward resolution.
April 10th, 2009 at 4:48 pmRemember folks…..Pirate!….a short drop and a sudden stop…
April 10th, 2009 at 10:49 pmWhy all of the political correctness? I don’t think any of “Preble’s Boys” would have any moral difficulty navigating through any part of this problem.
The most draconian response would be to splinter every small craft within reach for about a week. This will motivate the locals to police their own coast, and send a clear message to everyone that this will not be tolerated anymore, by any of us.
The tamest thing would be to arm every crew with the AA-12 shotgun as basic equipment on the ship, right along with the fire extinguishers.
If we are so soft and spongy with this issue, then we deserve what is coming to us, and it will get a whole lot worse, when they get a little more creative.
Send out some bait boats that really contain a heavily armed hidden contingent with weapons that out range simple rpgs’s
April 11th, 2009 at 1:35 amI remember ww2 films of freighters equiped with covered cannons that would defend against U boats .
This would be to send a message that the free lunch is over.
Most of you posters sure do love to hear yourselves talk.
April 11th, 2009 at 4:53 amYou over complicate a very simple solution.
There is no public support for these pirates.
There is no Somali government to take offense.
Nobody will cry if coalition forces kill every pirate.
No need for marines, just blow up every launch and shorebase from the air.
Period.
“Oh, the poor (pick any term used by the media to describe a third world nation that resides in a sewer), getting beat up on by the big, bad white United States! Oh, the inhumanity! Lets get the International Court to put them in jail!”
The other part that don’t fly easily is the “coalition” thing. Don’t get me wrong, I agree, would have done it a long time ago, but everyone is worried about the CNN and the AQNN (Al-Queda News Network) and how it would be shown to the gentle masses around the world. Today, you have to win the information battle before you start on the real battle.
April 11th, 2009 at 10:16 am1. Bait ships don’t work. Brits discontinued Q ships after trying it for a while. The idea work any better now when the bad guys have cell phones & comms.
2. If anyone really thinks nothing is being done, then you are mistaken. It seems folks want action as soon as they can comment on a blog…it takes time to move assets to where they need to be.
I am willing to be there is a response planned/in planning of FBI negotiations don’t work.
3. US Marines on US-flagged cargo ships (only US-flagged ships) won’t accomplish what you are hoping for, as we only carry about 7% (perhaps more, perhaps less) of commercial cargo to/from the US on US-flagged ships.
What we want is freedom of navigation for all ships.
Marines Navy FP teams (better idea)or private security (really the preferred method) on US-flagged ships will provide an added measure of safety & might discourage further attacks.
4. Whacking all small boats is really inane. Killing whatever innocent fishermen there are in that area is not a good idea.
5. This is a complicated, long-term problem that requires what we are seeing now — coordinated coalition efforts. You might not like it, because it isn’t easy, or quick. It also requires effort ashore.
April 11th, 2009 at 11:00 am“Today, you have to win the information battle before you start on the real battle.”
Key point, and excellently stated. So… how? From my comment well above: A few YouTube videos of pirate vessels (with pirates in them) being shot to pieces or of captured pirates swinging from the gibbet would raise the risk side of the risk/reward equation significantly.
But also with comment. The scourge of international piracy. Brutal outlaws. Freedom of the seas.
Actions without comments are open to much more interpretation than actions with comments. We ought to be cognizant of that by now.
April 11th, 2009 at 11:05 am“If anyone really thinks nothing is being done, then you are mistaken. It seems folks want action as soon as they can comment on a blog…it takes time to move assets to where they need to be.”
Well, one of the very difficult things about incidents like this is that action has to be quick as well as effective. A better balance of Elmo Zumwalt’s high-low spread may have allowed for units on station a lot faster than they got there.
Running about and meeting behind closed doors does not constitute “action” to any appreciable degree. The hijacking of the Maersk Alabama occurred Wednesday morning, EDT. More than 72 hours have passed, and we have some FBI on scene, and a US Warship in a Mexican Standoff.
Complicated long-term? Perhaps. Solve that long-term. The hijacking is short term and as of yet, little words or action from our political leadership. You want long-term effects? Prove to the world you are impotent or unwilling to address the problem. Then you will have long-term effects aplenty.
April 11th, 2009 at 11:17 amWhy not use divers to approach the lifeboat from below, plant a charge to blow a hole and sink it. The pirates will be too busy trying to save themselves to retaliate.
April 11th, 2009 at 1:00 pmDid you forgot the US citizen in the life boat? Thought so…
April 11th, 2009 at 1:36 pmIf it was easy, it would already have been done.
April 11th, 2009 at 1:56 pmEasy or not, it should have been done by now. POTUS and NSC get paid to make the hard decisions effectively, and in a timely manner.
April 11th, 2009 at 2:21 pmLet me add…if that was all there was to it, the DDG on station could have put a 5″54 round through it…literally.
April 11th, 2009 at 2:22 pmByron,
Then decisions about options need to have been made and executed otherwise. The longer we are stymied to inaction, the more we will be seen as unable or unwilling to act, or as being tolerant of such activities. Which will, of course, lead to much more of the same.
How long have we been talking about the pirate issue off Somalia? And we haven’t a COA for an AMCIT hostage?
April 11th, 2009 at 2:27 pmDo we still stick with the no negotiations with terrorists holding hostages in the US? My heart goes out to Capt. Richard Phillips as well as his family and friends, but I think the French did it right. An end needs to be found. The Somalis had the chance to give up. You give them a certain time period to surrender the hostage (24-48 hours) or they will be fair game, as our ship and a US citizen was to them.
April 11th, 2009 at 2:44 pmI went back and looked at my posts – and the answer is — the Somali pirates have been a topic at my site since 2005.
April 11th, 2009 at 4:51 pmperhaps we might establishe a “line in the sand/water” about 200 miles out and tell the somalies that any one in a small boat with ladders in it is open to target practice by the grey hulls. (they always need to practice their first round hit capability)
if they say they are lost then they just wern’t good enough navigators to be out there anyway.
anyone in something larger, say 30-1500 feet long, is subject to inspection unless they know the word of the day.
we would answer the traditional whines and snivels in the following manner.
by whose authority? see the stars and stripes at the yardarm.
but what if you guys are pi$$ed off at us? stay on our good side and you won’t have a problem.
i haven’t seen any verbage about this situation in the “Law of the Sea……..” Captains Yeoman is typing up the necessary changes as we speak……..
this is mogadishu all over again. the negotiator in chief has lost what, the third military and strength trial so far.
whats the morning line in vegas on who in CONUS gets hit first?
C
April 11th, 2009 at 5:58 pmThere is a US citizen aboard the lifeboat. If we recklessly kill that man, what are we? If he was a German or Russian citizen, I would feel the same way.
I want there to be a fee because people who get things for free don’t appreciate them. This is not a critical part of the plan but it bothers me when people expect the US government to do everything for free.
I want to use US Marines instead of private firms because Marines are US military people. One cannot say that they are just a different sort of pirate. And they will be under military control and discipline. In my opinion, that is better to start. Maybe we can use contractors later.
I want the Marines on US-flag ships because a German or Russian ship might be uncomfortable with a US military force — however small — on it. I understand that the German and Russian ships will not be protected. I can’t help that. I think that we can offer a service to US-flagged carriers. I don’t think that the Germans and the Russians expect the US to solve their problems.
I want the Marines posted to the ships at sea — in international waters. Protection for US ships in other national waters is the responsibility of that nation. If they are clearly not doing their job then we can take the next step. It seems to me that it is time to do that in Somalia right now.
I think if we do this the pirates will leave the US ships alone and attack other ships. Those countries can create their own solution, use our solution with their own troops, use our solution and our troops, get together and figure out a joint solution, do something else, or just live with it. As someone pointed out, US ships are only a very small part of the traffic. Why is it that solving our problem is not good enough? Why is preventing piracy against other flagged carriers our problem in the first place? I think that we can rapidly and easily solve our little issue without being forced to solve a great big international problem. If our solution works then we demonstrated a solution. If it doesn’t work then we haven’t spent 6 months coming up with a great big plan before even trying something out. I realize that the pirates will adapt. I can’t help that. I want to create a dynamic where we can adapt too.
I think that we should engage the pirates where they live. Attacking people who live in villages and towns in a sovereign country is an issue that will be decided way above my level. In my opinion pirates are not national combat soldiers and they are not criminals. This creates the same problem that the previous administration had with terrorists — what the heck are they? For those of you who have simple answers to this sort of attack, starting thinking about prestige, influence, and major international trouble if we attack a “pirate village” and a Muslim child or woman is killed in an exchange of gunfire. Why didn’t we give them money or food? Why didn’t we approach them as a policeman would? Why didn’t we encourage the Somali government or the Saudi government or the Ethiopian government to speak with them? I think that we should attack them and I think that it should be violent but this is not simple and our government will have to speak about the decision to make this attack, planning, and what happened. It will take them time to be ready for that.
“I don’t want to be disagreeable, I’m just saying …” I can just hear the news conference.
“Well, one of the very difficult things about incidents like this is that action has to be quick as well as effective.”
Yep. And that means that the commanders on the ships in the area have to have the right resources (Marines, SEALs, Delta, etc), a flexible plan that can be rapidly adapted to the situation, the time and resources to practice the plan and get everyone up to speed, and the authority and freedom to act rapidly when something happens. Please recall the control that Johnson exercised over SOG operations in Laos, Carter and Desert 1, and Clinton and Somalia. Presumably Mr. Obama is holding the same degree of control over the US Navy in the Indian Ocean because if he isn’t then the Navy has some explaining to do.
All of the easy things are impossible — you can’t put a 5″ shell through that lifeboat or surface a submarine under it or drop a nuke on it or send them a nice rice dish with sleeping potion in it.
All of the possible things are difficult but the biggest problem is very simple. If anyone does anything and if it does not go perfectly, they will be attacked by everyone else and defended by almost no one. I have been reading about this in the USNI Proceedings for the 11 years that I have been a subscriber. The Navy is hardly the only organization with this problem.
If you are thinking that the pirates are only interested in money, consider the French victim. The French tried to get their people back. They lost one. Say a prayer for the lost man and his family and for the people who tried to help and may those who took his life receive a visit from someone who returns the favor.
April 11th, 2009 at 6:15 pmSorry, but the pirates are criminals, Richard. And if an attempt to rescue the AMCIT results in his unfortunate death at the hands of his captors, it is hardly a case that “we” killed him “recklessly”. The men risking their lives to free him deserve better than such hogwash.
It is that precise softness and “everything’s negotiable” stance that emboldens.
April 11th, 2009 at 7:00 pmAnd, almost on cue, this from the NYT:
“Negotiations over the American captain taken hostage by Somali pirates broke down on Saturday, according to Somali officials, after American officials insisted that the pirates be arrested and a group of elders representing the pirates refused.”
Are you friggin’ KIDDING me?
April 11th, 2009 at 7:04 pmI am not forgetting the U.S. Captain aboard. He may or may not survive the shaped charge blast to the hull. (breach the hull, not blow it to bits). With the lifeboat sinking, the pirates are not going to be holding onto their weapons as they tread water. If they execute the prisoner, they should be summarily executed in the water.
April 11th, 2009 at 8:56 pmLet’s market a week long hunting trip- say $5000 per hunter, includes airfare. Would provide decoy ships that could attract the pirates and then blast them out of the water, or hang them like the good old days, and sell movie rights! I would bet we could get 1,000 guys from Texas and elsewhere who have the guts to do the right thing. Else we should let the Israelis or Russian Special forces since it seems no one else will.
Time for action.
April 11th, 2009 at 9:07 pmBoth destroyers on sight have powerful sonar at this short range, light up the sonar, this is an enclosed lifeboat. If both ping on it continuosly the pirates will not br able to think after a couple hours. Do it 24 hrs a day. Then you could shut it down, sent seals with underwater sleds to either toss grenades with knockout gas, or put C4 with a timer in two or three places below the waterline to force them to abandon the boat.
April 11th, 2009 at 9:15 pmDid it occur to anyone here that it’s possible that other people might be reading our comm’s? Perhaps we should lay off on suggesting how to free our sailor. And before you ask, groups like Al-Queda are very good at utilizing the internet. Don’t ever think for a moment that they aren’t.
April 12th, 2009 at 6:15 amIf they are criminals they get arrested and they get lawyers and they get a trial. This I do not agree with.
As ex-military I would not completely object to soldier status that converts to prisoner of war status. But they don’t wear uniforms and are not part of a formal military structure so that is kind of a problem for me.
I hope that calling them pirates or bandits gives the commander all of the flexibility that he needs to deal with the issue.
I said reckless for a reason — reckless means overt disregard. If I was on a team to rescue someone held hostage on an enclosed lifeboat, I want a plan that I believed stood a good chance of rescuing a live hostage and not killing me or my team in the process; except for what they can do to me I have no concern for the hostage takers. Pulling dead good guys out of the water sucks — that is the voice of experience. If we have a good plan that stands a good chance of succeeding, that is called doing your best. Then if things go wrong, pulling dead friends out of the water sucks just a little less.
I have been asking for action since my first post on this topic but reckless action frequently turns out badly. The operators are there and I trust them to do what they think will work when they are allowed to move. In the end, all of our talk is just talk and means little to the people on the pointy end of the spear. I am probably too old, fat, and slow (not to mention ugly) to do the hard things.
To you guys in the IO: via con Dios and get some!
April 12th, 2009 at 10:29 amOooo… I like it Hardliner. Charter some pirate hunting.
I’d love to know who this group of elders representing the pirates is in UltimaRatioReg’s post last night. I’m sure we are onto them already. Are we negotiating through Somali officials who are in contact with these “elders representing the pirates”.
What the Hell is that!!!
April 12th, 2009 at 11:18 amThe right options were available!! The current crisis is solved. Now let’s hope the right decisions are made to go after the source of the problem.
Thank the guys who were behind the scopes! Snipers did their job well.
Bill L.
April 12th, 2009 at 2:15 pmHi Lambiaso, glad the government to my advice posted on april 10th:
“As for the current hostage situation. send one sharp shooter afor each pirate, coordinate them to fire on say the count of three, and thus killing each pirate simultaneously. Then bring the captain back on board and continue their voyage, with no fanfare.”
haha, i was right on the money.
dan cucich
April 10th, 2009 at 1:34 am
April 13th, 2009 at 1:26 amThe World community should adress the Real problem in Somalia.
To be a somali i not happy what is going on in Somalia, and the action of somali pirates against any ship rraveling around the somali coast.
I think the real problem is that SOMALIA , DO not have a strong Goverment who can control the safety of our Country.
So i would recommend the World community to support the weak newly elected SOMALIGOVERMENT, SO that they could build a good law and order departments.
If somalia goverment getts help from the world community to rebuild the police, Marine and other law and order structures then the goverment will get a chance to tackle the PIRATES PROBLMEN.
SO THE FACT OF THE PROBLEM IS THAT SOMALIA DO NOT HAVE A STRONG GOVERMENT WHO CAN HANLDE THE PROBLEM WITH THE PIRATES.
SO GIVE HAND TO THE NEW GOVERMENT THEN THE GOVERMETNT WILL ADDRESS THE PIRATE PROBLEM AND OTHER INSUCURITY ISSUES IN SOMALIA
THANKS
April 13th, 2009 at 3:33 amYUSUF
One more issue to consider. Why in the world give an interview to the pirates or any who support them? If anything, eliminate their voice by any means possible, give them the camera and you embolden them more. This issue needs to be addressed from all angles.
April 13th, 2009 at 10:35 amThanks to USN and SEALS for putting 3 bad guys down, saving one of our own, and “defending freedom” around the world. GO NAVY (beat Army.)
Ok, time to get back down to earth.
The pirates in Somalia hold more than forty ships and over 200 hostages spread out along the Somali coasline. It would be nearly impossible for us to land the level of force that would be required to take all these guys down at once and free the hostages. Most of the hostages would likely die in such an effort. They aren’t soldiers or marines – they didn’t sign up to die.
This is not an act of war against the United States, it’s a criminal act for profit by the pirates. The shipping companies recognize this and are quite willing to pay the ransoms to free the hostages and get the ships back. Let them. This is about money, not national pride.
As far as executing the pirates that are taken into custody goes, game that all the way out. Knowing that such a fate awaits them will only cause them to fight to the death and take the hostages with them. The profits are big enough and other opportunities are non-existent. They won’t stop being pirates. We want our opponents to surrender to us, not become more nasty.
This is not our only interest in Africa. The U.S. is trying to make diplomatic and social inroads into that continent. In the long run, this will end or at least curtail the piracy. If we are seen as wantonly killing Africans, even pirates, we lose our bigger strategy – and in so doing, push Africa into the hands of the Chinese.
It would be appropriate for the U.S. Navy to do what it can to protect U.S.-flagged ships. Let Liberia and Panama protect ships flagged in those countries. They probably don’t look so convenient to their owners these days. Many of those owners are Americans avoiding U.S. taxes and safety standards. I don’t think we should put U.S. treasure, prestige, or especially U.S. sailors or marines at risk for a bunch of unpatriotic tax cheats.
The answer lies in working with other countries to build up Somalia, one village or town at a time, until the country is back under the control of a functioning government. That’s what the Maritime Strategy of October, 2007 was all about. In the meantime, we do what we can against the pirates at sea, and let the ship owners pay the ransoms where necessary.
April 13th, 2009 at 10:44 amDuring the days of sailing ships, commercial carriers were armed with heavy cannon for a reason. Now that the world is more “civilized”, commercial shipping is forbidden from being armed, or entering most seaports with any kind of firearms aboard. As a result, commercial carriers are at the mercy of 3 or 4 people in a rubber boat who have AK-47 rifles. The matter is exacerbated by a P.O.T.U.S. who insists on having the sole authority to authorize our Navy to use deadly force. When half a dozen U.S. warships have to stand idly by when confronted by 3 men at a range of approximately 30 yards while P.O.T.U.S. spends days deliberating how politcally correctly free a hostage, there is something seriously wrong with the command structure of our entire military establishment. Permit cargo and passenger ships to arm themselves and defend themselves, and the priacy problem will be greatly reduced.
April 13th, 2009 at 11:13 amThey weren’t standing idly by. They were waiting for an opportunity to act and they took it – successfully I might add.
The President has to operate in a much bigger world than just the coast of Somalia. How we respond to events like this will determine how successful we are in the other areas of foreign policy we have to deal with.
I refer you back to my post above. We need to dial down the rhetoric and stop making this an act of war. That paints us into a very bad corner from which we cannot succeed. We can’t free the existing hostages through force and will only get a bunch of innocent people killed. This is a criminal act and needs to be treated as such. We need intelligence, the right kind of Navy (more small ships, even armed fast yachts), and most of all, patience.
April 13th, 2009 at 2:03 pmGary Prost Said:
“They weren’t standing idly by. They were waiting for an opportunity to act and they took it – successfully I might add.”
According to every major news report, the stipulation was that they could act when (and I suppose if) Captain Phillips was in imminent danger. I’m not prepared to lay criticism after a successful operation, but more needs to be done to prevent situations like these. We should not be reacting to a U.S. citizen being taken hostage in international waters when I think there are plenty of ideas for preventing it from happening in the first place.
As far as recovering current hostages, ships, and cargo, I guess the question is, where do you draw the line between a military problem and a law enforcement problem? Can you solve or deter this “criminal act” through law enforcement when there is no local government to speak of to assist?
April 13th, 2009 at 2:32 pmYes, I agree. We need to do more to prevent this. Prevent being the operative word. More ships (they don’t even have to be frigates – European billionaires have yachts that would be perfect for this mission), armed guards on the merchant ships (Marines, Navy MAs, or private security) at the invitation of the US-flagged shipping companies (I don’t want to support owners who save money by burdening the American taxpayer), and convoys would be good ideas.
But once the ship and crew are in the hands of the pirates, they hold all the cards. Our only realistic recourse is to get Somalia back under the control of a government. We’re already in the Horn of Africa in Djibouti. Build on that.
April 13th, 2009 at 3:37 pmGreat idea, but we’ve seen the problems with so-called nation building in Iraq, and we’ve had a huge presence there. Getting Somalia “under the control of a government” is likely a more difficult task, especially considering their distrust of foriegn intervention. I certainly don’t have many answers on solving this, but if our “only realistic recourse” is as you state, then it’s gonna be a long wait.
April 13th, 2009 at 3:48 pmIt is gonna be a long wait. I just heard a good idea today. Work with what’s there. One village or town or city at a time. Get a local government functioning based on the tribes or clans that already exist. Then join contiguous governments into regional governments. Then, eventually, join the regional governments into a national government of some kind.
Is it perfect? No, but it’s what we have. That plan really isn’t all that different from how our western governments evolved.
And we need to create the navy that can combat this stuff when it rears its ugly head. The problem with swatting flies with sledghammers isn’t just that the sledgehammers are too expensive – they’re also too hard to swing fast enough to hit the nimble flies.
April 13th, 2009 at 5:56 pmRebuild Somalia? Just when was Somalia what we would consider anything but a “failed state”?
And our strategic interests there?
April 13th, 2009 at 7:20 pmNada. None. Zip. Zero. Just dying to hear the cases made on the “pro- lets help them out” side. Of course, I’m a Darwinian, it’s just in my nature.
April 13th, 2009 at 7:25 pmWe’re in Afghanistan because it became a place where terrorists could live and train unhindered. Somalia is becoming that sort of place. That’s our national interest.
April 13th, 2009 at 7:31 pmI, for one, fail to see the sense in providing enough troops, resources, and time to pacify Somolia in order to save the expense of plussing up USN force levels by 40 small ships (note the 90 or so surface warships paid off and scrapped, sold, or mothballed to underwrite the “peace dividend”, because “history had ended”). What savings?
Go look at the map, measure the distances, ponder climate and topography, look at the gross immaturity of the theater. A logistic pain. It would mean a minimum mix of enough airmobile, mech infantry, transportation and SOF brigades for a smallish Army Corps, for 20-30 years. A gigantic Tar Baby which would draw Al Queda like flies, and would be politically unobtainable, given Afghanistan in progress. Hugely expensive, and bloody.
Let’s do some back of the envelope figuring. A navalized Bertholf class cutter (unrep capable, air search radar) is a perfectly adequate austere baseline ASuW (non ASW, minimal AAW) frigate, which should be reasonably economical if we restrain the need to differ from the Coast Guard’s specs except when absolutely necessary (no change orders without a flag officer’s first born child given up). Take advantage of the economies of scale for a large production run of 8-10 vessels a year for five or less years. Spec a construction time of 36 months or less, bonus for less, penalty for more. Let’s say a total production run of 36 vessels.
Establish a Dar es Salaam to Massawa and reverse convoy route.
Set up a two task unit/convoy shuttle from opposite ends, constantly running. Designate a MOMP east of the Gulf of Aden to pick up joining merchants from Hormuz and Malacca straits. MSC support as required.
In Theater:
Three task units of four convoy escorts each,
Naval Armed Guard detachments for each merchant ship (12 dets x 30 MA’s and GM’s plus CPOinC per det). Any more ships than twelve in a convoy must hire mercenary Armed Guards off approved list, get your reservations early, U.S. flag first served. Tag alongs at own risk, rear of convoy.
Publish a brief standard tailored signal book.
Aviation Det. (2 upgunned Seahawks – 50 aviators).
Small Seal det per task unit for first two years, then draw down to one on call in theater.
A deployed Squadron of 12 ASuW or LCS frigates, gives a 33% maintenance and transit availability.
3 Squadrons, one deployed, one maintenance, one POM, plus ROH units.
One helo Aviation Squadron (24 aircraft) deploying dets.
4 months deployed/on station, 8 months transit and home.
Coast Guard and NATO participation (USN operational control) most welcome.
Augment from the rest of the fleet for the odd cutting out raid as appropriate.
15-20 year commitment. Ease up and draw down the last five years. Much cheaper in terms of blood and treasure.
Let the Navy ensure freedom of the seas and suppression of piracy. Let Dept of State, NGO’s and other nations fix Somolia, if they can.
There’s a back of the envelope straw man, everyone. Many errors stipulated, for vigorous discussion, no ego, no pride of authorship. Have at it!
April 13th, 2009 at 9:38 pmHayball,
EXACTLY! We use Bertolfs painted grey. They’re plenty able for the task at hand. Leave the nation-building to people who know how to do it (DOD has proven they really suck at it).
I’ll take it one step further. There’s something we can do right now, using aircraft carriers against the pirates. Drop leaflets describing the hostages and their families to the ordinary Somalis in the places the pirates operate. Humanize the merchant seamen being held by the pirates. Show that they aren’t warriors, just ordinary guys making their living at sea, just like many of the fishermen who live on the Somali coast. Start separating the pirates from their public support. Portray the pirates as cowards.
Then offer big rewards for anyone who will rat the pirates out. There don’t have to be any takers, but we can act like there are. That will go a long way to take the pirates out of their comfort zone.
April 13th, 2009 at 11:04 pmHardliner mentioned decoys, which was how Jose Gaspar, the “Last Buccaneer,” was put out of business in 1821. He thought he had an easy target until he discovered too late it was a US Navy pirate hunter. Not wanting to be taken alive, Gaspar wrapped a chain around himself and went to the bottom.
The Marines walked ashore at night during the last Somalian debacle, but it turned out to be more of a media event than anything. It was a night operation, but thanks to the lighting provided by camera crews, it was lit up like broad daylight.
The closest I ever got to SONAR was as an AE in VP-65 quite a while ago, but has anybody considered deploying a network of sensors close to the coast to detect the presence and proximity of the mother ships to home base? even if they were able to pull up the sensors, it would at least give their last known position.
April 14th, 2009 at 12:40 amWhat w eneed is cutting out operations. Send in SEAL teams underwater to saw through the anchor chains of the captive vessels just as the land breeze arrives. Let Mother Nature sail the vessels outside the 12 mile limit and claim salvor’s rights. Let the shipowner/enablers pay their ransom money to the US NAvy not the pirates. That will destroy the economic incentives for piracy pretty quick!
April 14th, 2009 at 7:10 amHayball, great comments. Noticed you mentioned a gray Berthoff.
A question in the comment string on the “war of tomorrow” post asked whether we could find a surface unit that would be effective across the spectrum. Anyway, here was my answer on the other blog. (Mentioned in context of a “new” Gearing)
…”I would think that a modern Gearing is a 4500 ton (ish) 30+ knot platform with a 6,000-mile radius that carries a significant weapons suite. At least one 5″ or 6″ gun (as long as AGSS can fire good ol’ HE from time to time), VLS pod, and ADA systems that give some defense against cruise missiles and subsonic attack aircraft. Sturdy, survivable, not over-engineered.
Probably not a 14,000-ton, $3 billion capital unit. And a full crew, perhaps 180-200. Not a “super crew” of 40 who can’t eat, sleep, or simultaneously repair damage and fight, should the ship find itself in action. Likely not carrying AEGIS, but able to link in to the wider network if required.”
Sort of like the love child of an FFG-7 and Berthoff cutter?
Lots of your other comments about Somalia’s operational environs are spot on. And Gary below makes some important observations about the information/propaganda fight.
April 14th, 2009 at 8:39 amWhile watching NBC news this evening (6pm PST) A news alert was posted that a U.S. vessel was captured by Somali pirates with 20 U.S. seamen on board.
How in the name of anything that is holy can this be?? Did we as a nation just think there would be no retaliation, that they were just bluffing?
I would have imagined ALL U.S. flagged ships would be immediately armed or protected. I guess I am an over reactive paranoid.
Now the sh** gets binding. We will see executions of U.S. citizens on the high seas if this is true.
April 14th, 2009 at 8:42 pmWJL,
It appears that the hijacking attempt was unsuccessful.
April 14th, 2009 at 8:50 pmThanks for the info,
I justed found more news on the attack from a source in Dubai, the local news hasn’t updated their sources. The bridge was shot up pretty badly, but they were able to “repel” the borders, and the Bainbridge is on site now.
Another wake up call? How many is it going to take?
April 14th, 2009 at 8:57 pmYusuf,
Your point is a good one. These issues need to be addressed concurrently. One cannot wait on another.
The US Navy, and the US itself has the responsibility to protect American ships and sailors. Though the efforts to help Somalia MUST be international, America’s responsibility to protect her freedom of the seas is hers, and hers alone.
April 14th, 2009 at 9:08 pmYusuf,
Also, thanks for contributing.
URR
April 14th, 2009 at 9:08 pmHere is FoxNews’ report, Failed attempt..
April 14th, 2009 at 9:33 pmBurma Shave,
According to the FoxNews Report, the Liberty was another ship carrying food and humanitarian aid to Kenya and other countries in need.
Why are the pirates targeting humanitarian aid ships? Is the situation in Somalia getting desparate?
Immediate solution, stop sending humanitarian aid ships to countries in need until all the piracy stops. Hold the pirates accountable for their actions. As I have stated previously in other posts, the same principles apply to sending a hospital ship to Gaza. Now we are seeing the results of self-less, self-sacrificial pragmatism running amok. Fortunately, no Americans have lost their lives.
Instead of building Bridges over the River Kwai, we are sending “humanitarian aid ships” into a pirate haven. Madness, sheer madness.
April 14th, 2009 at 9:41 pmHaven’t looked at the USN VP roster in many years. Do we have any patrol squadrons that can detect, track and call down 3hit on all of those fishing boats that are sailing without nets and fishing gear off of the Somali coast? Any friendly airports to support the effort?
April 14th, 2009 at 9:53 pmAre we to be held hostage by these Somali Pirates?
April 15th, 2009 at 7:31 pmThey are Nothing more than dirty terrorist, President Obama should sign legislation outlawing Somalia altogether and then we can eradicate this Nuisance off of the planet, I say NUKE SOMALIA altogether, they cannot feed themselves and they will not ever be productive members of the world community and i say its high time we as americans rid ourselves of these people, and while we are at it we may as well take out other non conformist regimes , North Korea comes to mind , as does COMMUNIST CHINA, lets get rid of them before they get rid of us…..
What if there was a registry for using the gulf of Aden, set up by the navies of the countries patroling that waterway: ie: US, Canada, India, Great Britain, ect, that is set up, and any vessle that is not registered is apprehended or sunk.
April 15th, 2009 at 8:21 pmI haven’t heard anything about using planes to sink the attack boats. It seems to me, with their speed, they would have a better
April 15th, 2009 at 11:52 pmchance of sinking the Parent Ships and also the speed boats the pirates use to attack merchant vessels, so, I’d say, lets put an
aircraft carrier just at the end of the Gulf of Aden, and have planes on the ready. For us, bombing works well, but sending in troops to Somalia would be a big mistake! Maybe even another small Aircraft Carrier at the South side of Somalia. They are deployed anyway, so let’s put them somewhere they would do some good.
John:
Carriers are great. Take away the ones in the shipyard and training new naval aviator candidates and there are 9.
Three are in home port, resting and being worked on.
Three are practicing, being inspected, correcting deficiencies, or otherwise preparing to deploy, or transiting to the deployment AOR.
Three are deployed. Two of these cover the two military campaigns in progress (kill enemies so as to reduce the number of out guys who get killed). One is transiting to, transiting from or in a foreign port, getting worked on or maybe getting a little liberty.
That leaves zero. How many of the remaining zero would you like?
Oh, include LPH’s. Well, there are…
April 16th, 2009 at 7:18 amSucks when the math don’t add up, doesn’t it? We keep trying to make that point, but folks STILL don’t get it that a CVSG is the most flexible and deadly weapon next to a nuke.
April 16th, 2009 at 7:27 am[...] the waters off East Africa appear to collapse to a relatively few, relatively distinct shipping lanes — as determined by the Seychelles to the south and Socotra to the north — which of [...]
April 19th, 2009 at 11:50 pmI really do not understand why ships aren’t fitted with non lethal anti ship boarding systems such as the MBAD from http://www.gotridentgroup.com
April 20th, 2009 at 1:53 amThis would solve a problematic situation cheaply,efficiently and wouldn’t offend anyone!
Another weapon that can be used to repel borders is Taser guns. Ship mounted with longer range cabling that would induce lethal charges. Another option that has been researched for other uses, is a high power,tight beam microwave transmitter to explode the ordinance on board the attacking boats, or just fry the pirates.
April 24th, 2009 at 10:32 amMy last trip through there was a merchant marine deck officer on a “Cape ship” RO-RO.
M60 in the eyes of the ship, ma deuces along the side port and starboard, Mil Det armed guards in uniform carrying automatic weapons and pump shot guns roving in uniform along the lifelines, fantail and hull aft of the bridge fully illuminated down to the waterline. Stern and quarter lookouts fully armed in full battle rattle.
Nice quiet tropical voyage. No close contacts.
April 24th, 2009 at 2:45 pmMy modest proposal for the Somali pirates is two fold:
1. Re-institute the Q-Ships that served so well in WWII. British and US navies sent out apparent merchant ships that were heavily armed and manned. Instead of fighting submarines, these modern Q-ships could lure pirates aboard to be overcome by well armed Sailors and Marines. Radio and Internet traffic and portside gossip would be support the cover identity. (WWII Q-ships used radio traffic to lure U-boats to what they thought were disabled merchantmen.
2. Conclusively identify the mother ships used by pirates and attack them with submarines and armed UAV. The mother ships are the key to the expanding apirate AO. Picking up survivors and transporting them to prison would be appropriate afterwards.
Attacking pirate land bases is a logical approach but the collateral damage would make it politically impossible. The pirates live in villages with civilans, not in isolated barracks ashore.
May 5th, 2009 at 11:20 pm“Attacking pirate land bases is a logical approach but the collateral damage would make it politically impossible.”
Davy Porter had trouble with that.
Hit don’t change much.
May 6th, 2009 at 7:06 amI wrote a blog entry on how to stop the piracy. Harden the ships!
May 15th, 2009 at 12:32 amI still want to know how to get a job shooting Somalian pirates
November 18th, 2009 at 2:48 pm