Feral Jundi

Wednesday, April 8, 2009

History: The Q Ship, and How They Could Be Used To Battle Pirates

Filed under: History,Maritime Security,Somalia — Tags: , , , , , — Matt @ 8:40 PM

   Ok, here is one idea for battling these pirates.  Set up some Q Ships off the coast of Somalia, with the hopes of drawing out some pirates, and either nab them or kill them.  You make the ship look juicy enough, and these pirates will go after it.  The Navy could just lease a few different boats, and cycle them through those areas, all with the intent of drawing out these guys.  We used this tactic back in the day, until the U boat commanders started catching on.  

   My thoughts on it, is that the Navy could use the concept by leasing boats from the shipping industry to do it.  If a boat gets shot up a little, or an RPG hits the big things, the Navy could totally repair the boat, as per the lease agreement.  The shipping company could also have some kind of incentive to lease out to the Navy for putting up a boat, like some kind of insurance discount, tax credit, or just pay really well for the thing.  Even the little yachts out there could be used, and the imagination is the only limit.  The point being, is that boat should look like a really juicy target for the pirates, and then strike when they get close.

   Or as a business venture, a Private Naval Company could offer their services for building a Q Ship.  They could buy boats, modify them, paint them up a little based on the customer preference, and then hand them off to the Navy.  I don’t think the Navy would want a PNC to do it all, but their is a precedent for it in a way, with the Q Ships during the WW 1 and 2 and with privateers.  I am sure privateers back in the early days did all sorts of sneaky things to capture their prey, and using a Q Ship was probably one of them (or whatever they called it back then) Bring on the Q Ships! –Matt   

—————————————————————— 

The USS Anacapa

Q-ship

     Q-ships, also known as Q-boats, Decoy Vessels, Special Service Ships or Mystery Ships, were heavily armed merchant ships with concealed weaponry, designed to lure submarines into making surface attacks. This gave Q-ships the chance to open fire and sink them. The basic ethos of every Q-ship was to be a wolf in sheep’s clothing.

     They were used by the British Royal Navy (RN) during World War I and by both the RN and the United States Navy during the Second World War (1939–1945), as a countermeasure against German U-boats and Japanese submarines.

     In the First Battle of the Atlantic, by 1915, Britain was in desperate need of a countermeasure against the U-boats that were strangling her sea-lanes. Convoys, which had proven effective in earlier times (and would again prove effective during World War II), were rejected by the resource-strapped Admiralty and the independent captains. The depth charges of the time were very primitive, and thus the only method of sinking a submarine was by gunfire or by ramming while on the surface. The problem was luring the U-boat to the surface.

     One solution to this problem was the creation of the Q-ship, one of the most closely-guarded secrets of the war. Their codename referred to the vessels’ home port, Queenstown, in Ireland[1]. These would be known to the Germans as a U-Boot-Falle (“U-boat trap”). The Q-ship would pose as an easy target for the U-boat but in fact carry hidden armament. A typical Q-ship would be an old-looking tramp steamer calmly sailing alone near an area where a U-boat was reported to be operating. By posing as a suitable target for the use of the U-boat’s deck gun, the Q-ship would encourage the U-boat captain to bring his vessel to the surface rather than use one of his expensive torpedoes, which were in short supply. The cargoes of the Q-ships would be wooden caskets and wood (e.g., balsa or cork) so even if torpedoed they would stay afloat, encouraging the U-boat to surface and use its gun. If necessary the crew could even stage an “abandon ship” routine. Once the U boat was in a suitable position the Q-ship would change rapidly, false panels would drop to reveal the hidden guns which would start firing. At the same time the White Ensign (Royal Navy flag) would be raised. With the element of surprise the U-boat could be quickly overwhelmed.

(more…)

Maritime Security: The Pathetic Non-Action of Today’s Shipping Industry Off the Coast of Africa

Filed under: Africa,Maritime Security,Somalia — Tags: , , , , — Matt @ 8:20 PM

   If you are the owner of a shipping company, and your ship’s routes go anywhere near Africa, then you should be hiring armed security to protect your ships and crews.  To not defend your boats, is pathetic and damn near criminal.  I say criminal, because you are purposely sending people into harms way, without giving them adequate protection.  It is stupid and this is not taking care of your people.  What this is called, is putting more value on money and minimizing liability, and putting zero value on the lives of your crew, and that is criminal in my book. The security companies and consultants that continue to promote the concept of ‘no weapons’ on ships, are pathetic as well. It is terrible advice and it is not protecting these crews and boats, and it is advice that only caters to the financial goals of these companies. Ship captains need to speak up as well, because your crew is depending on you to do everything in your power to protect them.

   The only winner in this whole deal, are the pirates.  They have completely exploited this weakness in the shipping industry, and the ineffectual maritime strategy.  They are thumbing their noses at us all, and I see them continuing their wonderful business strategy.  It works, and they are making some good money–why should they stop? pffft. 

   I also believe the current maritime strategy to combat these pirates, is completely lacking.  What good is naval security, when it is 100’s of miles away?  What naval strategist thought that this was an adequate method of protection?  It would be like sending a principle out in his car in the worst areas of Iraq, with no PSD team, and telling him to call when he is in trouble. I wouldn’t do this on the roads of Iraq, and I wouldn’t do this off the coast of Somalia.  The Gulf of Aden is clearly dangerous, and certainly requires armed security on each boat.  If anything, the security on each boat could allow enough time during the fight, for a Quick Reaction Force to come to the rescue.  That’s if a naval QRF force could close the distance fast enough.  But really, how embarrassing if this is the best strategy folks can come up with?  

   Either way, both the naval strategy and the shipping company strategy is not working, and the pirates are still able to do their thing.  Put a fully armed Maritime Security Detail on each boat and make this happen.  And if there are issues with being armed while going through various country’s waters, then post a ship in international waters that can fly these MSD teams on to the boats when the time is right.    

   And these MSD teams should be adequately armed and trained to handle this stuff.  That means having something bigger than a Glock 19 or a smoke grenade on the boat.  I am talking about something that has reach and can sink a boat.  Do the math, and let your imagination go with it.  I have mentioned several weapon possibilities, and the time is over for messing around.  How many more boats and crews are we going to allow to be taken by these clowns?  Pathetic I say. –Matt 

——————————————————————

Somali pirates find US ship _ and a fight

By CHARLES J. HANLEY 

04/08/09

The equatorial sun had just passed high noon Wednesday when a text message flashed on reporters’ cell phones in Nairobi: 17,000-ton boxship seized 400 miles off Somali coast.

The informants, a local Kenyan seamen’s group, then added this startling note: All 20 crewmen were American.

The tropical seas off Somalia had grown treacherous with pirates in recent years. In 2008, the seaborne marauders stormed and seized a record number of commercial vessels, a giant Saudi supertanker among them, though never an American crew.

The high-seas hijackings, generating tens of millions of dollars in ransoms for the pirates, had eased off early this year, as a U.S.-led international naval force aggressively patrolled the Gulf of Aden. When they managed to mount attacks, the Somali pirates were left in ships’ wakes, foiled nine out of 10 times.

It was a lull during which Shane Murphy, a veteran of east African sea lanes as first mate of the U.S.-flagged freighter Maersk Alabama, returned home to talk to a class at his alma mater about this 21st-century scourge.

He told the Massachusetts Maritime Academy students he thought the pirates “knew better than to go against the American ships,” one recalled.

(more…)

Friday, March 27, 2009

Maritime Security: Pirate-Chasers Find Busting Brigands Is Easier Than Trying Them

Filed under: Legal News,Maritime Security,Somalia — Tags: , , , , , — Matt @ 7:45 PM

   This article brings up some of the legal problems of chasing pirates.  What do you do with them, if you happen to capture one?  I say we send them all to Sherif Joe’s tent city in Arizona, after we figure out a legal mechanism to try them. They would look sharp in pink. lol –Matt

——————————————————– 

Pirate-Chasers Find Busting Brigands Is Easier Than Trying Them 

By Gregory Viscusi

March 26 (Bloomberg) — The world’s navies have gotten better at catching Somali pirates in the Gulf of Aden. Now they have to figure out how to bring them to justice.

European Union and U.S. naval forces have captured dozens of presumed brigands in recent months after beefing up their presence in the Gulf of Aden, the world’s most dangerous waters. Most have been let go or dumped on the shores of neighboring Somalia because of a lack of evidence or confusion over what jurisdiction can prosecute them.

“International law is very clear about giving any warship from any sovereign nation the right to suppress piracy in international waters,” said John Kimball, a maritime expert at law firm Blank Rome LLP in New York. “But it’s a messy burden. They need to be processed and given trials. Not many governments are willing to do this.”

Spurred by a spike in piracy last year, about 20 warships from 15 countries are patrolling the gulf between Yemen and Somalia, and nearby waters. Pirates assaulted 165 ships last year, seizing 43 of them for ransom, with 10 boats taken in November alone. Only five ships have been seized so far this year, and only one this month.

Since last August, when international naval forces began aggressively patrolling off Somalia, 127 presumed pirates have been apprehended and then released, according to the U.S. Navy. Another 35 are awaiting trial in Europe or Kenya, and 91 were handed over to authorities of Somalia’s various entities. At least three have been killed in gun battles with French and British commandos.

(more…)

Wednesday, December 10, 2008

Maritime Security: Somali Privateers?

Filed under: Maritime Security — Tags: , , — Matt @ 1:45 PM

    Boy, that would be great if these guys were Privateers.  Then we would know who to deal with, that contracted these guys.  The world shipping industry could also plan their shipping, based on the objectives and laws being enforced by these privateers.  But what business, group, country is endorsing these guys?  And what exactly are their objectives and what legal authority do they have? And based on the world wide reaction to this, you guys have no support.

    I have some questions for Nasr.  If these Somali pirates are in fact privateers, then who gave them the letter of marque to do what they are doing?  And if their job is to protect the fishing waters off the coast of Somalia, then how is taking down an Oil Transporting Super Tanker, 400 plus miles off the coast of Somalia, accomplishing that job?  Did a business give them a letter of marque, did the government give this authority, or what?  Privateers would indicate some kind of attempt at maintaining a law or the sovereignty of a country, or defeating the enemy of a country.  To me, the activities of these thugs indicate no such thing. 

    Also, it sounds to me like these ‘privateers’ are stealing from local Somali fishermen, and not specifically targeting illegal foreign fishermen.  That is criminal, to steal from the people of Somalia, yet that is what they are doing.  Also, foreign fishing vessels would not risk going into the lawless and dangerous waters of Somalia.  If they did, they were idiots, because they would have no hope of protection under some rule of law.   

   The other problem I have with this, is who are these guys privateering for?  Because if they were actually privateers of a government, then it looks like to me that the Somali government is purposely attacking foreign vessels, not because of fishing violations, but because they want to steal from them or extort them with hostage taking. And what authority do they have, to do this in International waters? And who is the enemy or target of the government in this case?  

    Now if these privateers are being sponsored by local business, then what is the business and who are the owners?  Because in the west, we call businesses that hire pirates to loot boats out to 400 miles plus off the coast in international waters, organized crime.  Of course if that business was endorsed by the government, then we are back to question of the Somali government blessing this activity and what the government’s intent was.  Is the whole world the enemy, and is this why all ships are fair game for this activity?   

   Whatever the case, this is piracy in my view and in the majority of the world’s view.  Until these businesses or the government comes forward to claim responsibility for contracting with these privateers, they are still called pirates.  These pirates have no morale authority what so ever when they attack vessels and rob from them or take hostages for ransom, and do all of this well beyond Somalia’s coastal waters, out in International waters.  

    Also, this kind of ties into my article I posted below about privateers.  During the US Revolutionary war, our privateers had a clear objective, a specific enemy, and had total endorsement by my young country.  If in fact Somalia is claiming these privateers as theirs, then come forward and proclaim what the objective is and who is your enemy?

     Or maybe a non-state actor is contracting these privateers.  Perhaps Islamic extremists are the ones who are using these supposed privateers, and this is what is really going on.  Although then we go back to why would they take down a Saudi owned Super Tanker in International waters?  

   Bottom line, these are not privateers, these are pirates who if anything are working for organized crime in Somalia.  The country of Somalia is a failed state, and crime flourishes in failed states.  Extremists groups like Al Qaeda, love to set up shop in failed states, because there is no rule of law to hinder their presence or stop their training and operations.  It would not surprise me if extremist groups were contracting with privateers, but I mostly point my finger at organized crime and a country’s inability to stop that crime. So Nasr, your argument is crap. –Head Jundi 

—————————————————————— 

The Unlicensed and Undocumented Privateers of Somalia

9 Dec 9, 2008 

By Nasr Ibn Othmann 

I must admit that I was rather amused when I first encountered the phrase Unlicensed and Undocumented Privateers of Somalia. When I reflected upon these words for a moment, I realised that this is the perfect description of the noble men who currently guard the marine resource of the Somali nation. It is true that they have attained global fame, and that their exploits are being reported in all corners of the world. However, we must never tolerate the blatant racism that underpins the usage of words like Somali Pirates, or Islamic Pirates. We, the Somali people, must never tolerate the speculative statements, of so-called journalist experts, who earn their pay by dreaming up potential linkages between international terrorism and the honourable business of protecting Somali territorial waters.

(more…)

Sunday, November 30, 2008

Maritime Security: To the Shores of Tripoli..

Filed under: Maritime Security,Somalia — Tags: , , — Matt @ 1:11 PM

     A great little article about how we used to do things, when it came to pirates. Send the Marines and some Mercenaries, and attack the land bases of these pirates.  That and stop paying these ransoms, because it only encourages these guys.

     Now do I see an Obama administration sending troops to the shores of Somalia, just like we did in 1804? Or will the memory of our efforts in Somalia in the early nineties kick in, and prevent us from  doing what we need to do?  

     I don’t see us doing anything on land because of the bitter memory of our last venture there, but you never know.  If piracy becomes a money making tactic of the mufsid dorks, then we might see more of an effort to combat it as part of the overall war strategy.  More than likely, it will continue to be treated as a criminal thing, and ships will be on their own and the various navies involved will only have a partial impact on protecting them all.        

     Although, if we are to learn anything from history, we must deal with the land component of piracy as part of an overall strategy, if we are truly serious about combating it.  –Head Jundi

—————————————————————— 

Shores of Tripoli 

To the Shores of Tripoli . . .

The place to stop pirates is on the beaches.

by Seth Cropsey

12/08/2008, Volume 014, Issue 12

The November 15 hijacking 450 miles east of Mombasa, Kenya, of a thousand-plus foot oil tanker carrying more than two million barrels of crude oil forced international recognition that the seas have been dramatically added to the world’s list of outlaw space. According to the International Maritime Bureau, recorded attacks by pirates in the Gulf of Aden area have more than tripled–to 92–in the past year. The million square mile swath of the Indian Ocean off, and south of, the Somali coast through which approximately 20,000 ships a year pass between Asia, Europe, and the Western Hemisphere is within hailing distance of smaller, but no less significant, portions of the Middle East and South/Central Asia whose lawlessness has produced important consequences around the world. The prospect of a large-scale meeting of lawless land and lawless sea would be especially troubling even if the possible failed state in the middle–Pakistan–didn’t possess nuclear weaponry.

But for now, the problem is that Somali pirates who use global positioning devices to help identify potential targets, who deploy “mother” ships that can venture out to sea to launch and recover small fast boats, and who have mastered simple but effective tactics for capturing ships have transformed one of the world’s strategic choke points into a watery version of the Cyclops’ island home, a place without law. The consequences transcend what is already happening: spiking maritime insurance rates, significantly increased costs to international consumers as shipping lines reroute around the Cape of Good Hope, and a growing problem of captured ships’ crews held hostage in Somali pirate havens–330 crew members from 25 nations at last count.

(more…)

« Newer Posts — Older Posts »

Powered by WordPress