Ship captains and crew...

hogdogs

Staff In Memoriam
Overkill, I am 100% against using public gubmint military for commerce defense... But look up the maritime defensive armaments used since 1700 and see.... we don't need escorts... them are the epitome of "nanny state" mentality using a full military scale defense for a single commerce vessel defense. This ain't a WORLD WAR nor is it a trans atlantic "CONVOY" of military supply so I do not support nor condone a GUBMINT intervention...
Brent
 

teeroux

New member
Aren't there small armed unmaned gunboats being developed by the military. One or two of these being towed or carried by a ship can be set to deploy and intercept any incoming vessels.
 

SPUSCG

New member
A crew with aa-12s sounds awesome though. Full auto, 12 gauge, low recoil, what's not to like? And a sniper or two on the bridge.
 

Texas Rifleman

New member
All of the political correctness and soft served politics is making me sick. I say they be permitted to mount a .5o caliber machine gun on the side. Disarm it when in port. Arm it in international waters. See pirates in international waters? Destroy their puny bassboat until there is nothing left. Pretend it never happened. Business as usual. Who will miss them? Who will know? Who will care? There are simple answers in life but we feel we have to make them complex and impotent.
 

gb_in_ga

New member
Overkill, I am 100% against using public gubmint military for commerce defense.

Wrong, wrong, wrong.

You don't understand the whole reason for there being navies in the first place. Historically, navies came to being for the purpose of protecting commercial shipping and shipping lanes. Nowadays they are used for nationalistic power projections but that wasn't the reason why they came to being and it doesn't take away that primary mission they have.

Fighting pirates, commerce raiders and privateers are the primary missions of any navy.

The fact that the navies of the world aren't taking the fight against the pirates to their home ground goes to illustrate the feckless nature of the world's powers that be. We have become so litigation averse, and so averse to violating the territory/territorial waters of the host countries of the pirates that we can't combat the pirates.

What we need to do is look at how successful anti-pirating and anti-commerce raiding operations worked in the past. What works is -- escorted convoys and attacks against the home ports of the raiders.

The pirate problem will continue until somebody "grows a pair" and takes the fight to their home ports, tranzi- courts be damned. It is justifiable and has ample historical precedent. Or, it will happen when the shippers of the world start convoys -- escorted either by naval ships or those of similarly equipped contractors.
 

Dingoboyx

New member
cool Hogdogs D +1

I want to be on Brents boat...... I can just see it now, A dillon Mini Gun on the bow and stern, one on each side, proximity sensors to detect incoming so the dillon drivers can have a snooze til the action starts...... each crew member with a 40 or 45 SA, a scoped rifle and a full auto shotgun :p:D A razor sharp perimeter edge below the deck level, so if a grappling hook gets the rail, the knife edge would cut the rope..... An electrified section below the rail (at least 1000 volts)

How cool would that be :D
 

Texas Rifleman

New member
Fighting pirates, commerce raiders and privateers are the primary missions of any navy.

Being a historian, this is historically and traditionally true. These particular pirates are weak. What does that say about the people who get captured by them or their country?
 

overkill556x45

New member
Fighting pirates, commerce raiders and privateers are the primary missions of any navy.

Ding ding ding!

I am not for the expansion of "nanny state" power. The Navy's responsibility is to make the sea safe for commerce. Ever hear a song that goes "From the halls of Montezuma to the shores of Tripoli"? The "shores of Tripoli" (now Libya) were home to pirates who kept taking over our merchant ships, and either keeping them or ransoming them back to us (what was old is new again). TJ sent the fledgling U.S. Marines to send a message: "NO MORE."

The Navy always has ships patrolling somewhere in the world, war-gaming or just plain old shows of force. Since we're already paying for it, why don't we re-direct a few patrols to the piracy hot spots? I wasn't begging BHO for more government intervention- just asking the Navy to do what it was made to do.
 

hogdogs

Staff In Memoriam
Gb, Sorry but I can digress.... Naval entities were called upon to aid commerce... But they were already in operation! They were not busy with war so they got "training" when protecting these vessels. If they wereAT But the defense of a 3 million dollar load hauled by a 2 million dollar boat does not warrant a 5 billion dollar boat watching with a trillion bucks worth of background.
In the time of normal global peace it is up to the ship owner to put the smack down on piracy...
Brent
 

Doyle

New member
The US (and most of EU) is already patroling this area with naval ships. However, you probably don't realize that this coastline is almost the size of the whole US eastern seaboard. It is a huge area.
 

gb_in_ga

New member
I am not for the expansion of "nanny state" power.
Neither am I. But one of the few truly legitimate "missions" of the Federal government is that of self defense, including the raising and operations of a navy. And one of the most important -- no, strike that. THE most important mission of not only our navy but the navies of every nation on this planet is the protection of commercial shipping. In our case, that's primarily our own shipping but secondarily that of every other friendly peaceful nation as well.

I don't consider even for 1 minute the costs of having a global, commerce protecting navy to be an expansion of the "nanny state". It is one of the few things that the .gov actually should be doing, and is by no means an overreach of government power. I'll gladly pay my tax money for that instead of all of this pork and socialistic boondoggles. That not only our own navy but the other navies of the world are so feckless in the anti-piracy mission is a travesty.
 
Last edited:

gb_in_ga

New member
In the time of normal global peace it is up to the ship owner to put the smack down on piracy...

No, No, NO!

In the time of global peace, the only real combat mission of the navy is doing exactly that -- combating piracy. Not saying that the owners of ships shouldn't be arming themselves against these predators (because they should), but the PRIMARY responsibility of combating pirates is now and always has been the navies of the world.

True, it is kinda ridiculous to have $5 billion ships protecting individual commercial ships. The answer to that is -- make more, less expensive escort ships (a WWII example would be the Destroyer Escorts i.e. Frigates) and start traveling in convoys which reduces the escorting costs. It's sad that we don't have any of those old DE's in mothballs right now, since they would do the anti-piracy mission we currently face just dandy. Just slap a surface search radar on them.

The US (and most of EU) is already patroling this area with naval ships. However, you probably don't realize that this coastline is almost the size of the whole US eastern seaboard. It is a huge area.
Yes, I know. Similar problems vexed navies in the past. That the US, the various EU countries, Japan, etc. are patrolling isn't good enough. That they are already operating in the area isn't good enough. They need to be operating with the mindset of actually defeating the pirates. That means that instead of just sailing around showing the flag (which is what they're doing right now), they need to be:
> using their intel assets to determine where the pirates' bases are,
> then using that info attack them in their bases,
> and in the mean time gathering up the singleton ships into convoys so that they can be effectively protected by means of the limited escort assets in the area.

Until this happens, we're just urinating in the breeze.

--------------

I was just thinking about what a proposed new anti-piracy escort vessel should be and what it should have.

It should be a small frigate or large corvette sized vessel. Small enough to be made cheaply and in large numbers, and yet large enough to be ocean going with enough capacity to keep on station for weeks on end and/or provide screening for ocean going convoys.

It should have enough speed to keep up with convoys and enough to match or overtake Pirate motherships. 25 knots flank speed ought to be enough.
It should have a sophisticated surface search radar. It's difficult to fight 'em if you can't find 'em.
It should have at least some anti-aircraft/anti-SSM capability and some sort of air search radar for survivability and convoy defense. Say, a CIWS and a brace of Sea Sparrows.
It needs 1 rapid fire cannon in the 3" to 5" range. (Pirate mothership)
It needs 2 batteries of 20mm or 40mm autocannon. (Pirate assault craft)
It needs a sprinkling of .30 or .50 MGs. (Point defense)
It needs a small complement of SSMs of its own. Say, 4 Harpoons or Exocets. (in case the pirates want to up the ante) In the older days this role would have been filled by the torpedoes on the DEs.
It would be nice if it had Helo capability.
I don't really think that having a significant ASW capability would help in the mission and would up the ante too much. Pirates won't be using subs.
 
Last edited:

Hokie

New member
To those who seem to be arguing that the cargo ships aren't defending themselves out of sheer wussiness, I think you're failing to consider several factors. In general, they all come down to a cost-benefit analysis.

-If a country says that you can't have weapons, they can't really enforce it 100% (just like you can't have drugs in America or be an illegal immigrant). However, eventually they're going to find out that ships of your company or country are armed: either someone's going to blab or you're going to successfully fend off an attack. At that point, the country says "Sorry, Maersk, but your vessels are no longer welcome in our ports." While their country may need or want the cargo, the bureaucrats there aren't suffering too badly. What will happen then is that those who want to ship goods will switch to a carrier that isn't unwelcome. By having one ship successfully defend itself with arms (if you even get that), you lose your entire business with the country.

-Providing trained security can be pretty expensive. How many times does it take before it's less expensive to simply pay the ransom? Most of us don't fight even the traffic tickets we don't think we deserve, as it's just too expensive to do it that way.

-Escalation is a concern. No RPG is going to sink a modern cargo ship; even a lot of them probably won't. Hooking up some explosives to a radio-controlled boat might, though. If small arms and RPGs stop getting the job done then the pirates will move to measures that do work. This means more death, heavily damaged (or sunk) ships, and higher insurance.

-Piracy in the Mediterranean, Caribbean, and the African slave trade were effectively stopped by destroying the bases on land; with nowhere to go, pirate/slave ships couldn't get new crew and supplies.
 

gb_in_ga

New member
-Piracy in the Mediterranean, Caribbean, and the African slave trade were effectively stopped by destroying the bases on land; with nowhere to go, pirate/slave ships couldn't get new crew and supplies.

Ding, ding ding, whoop, whoop, whoop! We have a winna! Well, except that African slave trade is still going on albeit not on the high seas.

If you want to squash piracy you have to destroy their bases. In the mean time, to reduce the frequency of attacks you have to employ escorted convoys.

That is what works. Make it suicidal to attack the shipping and then finish them off at their bases.

just sink the BG's boats...
and say nothing
That sounds nice on the surface but it doesn't get rid of the regional piracy threat. The problem is that until you destroy their bases, until you make them hurt AT HOME, there will be another batch of pirates crop up real quick like to take their place. And they'll be nastier. If you just kill a boat load of them here and there without killing the nest, they'll just "mutate". They're not stupid. They'll up the ante by upping the capability of their attack craft. Faster, heavier armor, heavier weaponry.
 
Last edited:

Dingoboyx

New member
Take Hogdogs as your escort vessle

He'll just sink 'em one at a time :D

Hogdogs method
step 1/ Sink enemy
step 2/ re load
step 3/ repeat step 1
continue:D
 

Jmark58

New member
All of the political correctness and soft served politics is making me sick. I say they be permitted to mount a .5o caliber machine gun on the side. Disarm it when in port. Arm it in international waters. See pirates in international waters? Destroy their puny bassboat until there is nothing left. Pretend it never happened. Business as usual. Who will miss them? Who will know? Who will care? There are simple answers in life but we feel we have to make them complex and impotent.

+1 for Texas Rifleman. All of a sudden piracy would stop, and the pirates would be the only ones complaining. Somebody sunk our boat:eek: Now what do we do?
 

OhioAAA

New member
In my understanding, no commercial carrier (ship/tanker..etc) is allowed to carry anything that's lethal. They are allowed to have high-pressured water gun, pump riot control shotgun (rubber bullet), or gas grenade (launch by some sort of spring tube).

So no buck shot for them -- a 12ga slug will go through most commercially available armor.
 
Top