Solution to the Pirate problem?

[This Guy]

There has rightly been a lot of talk the last few days about how to handle the problem of the Somalian Pirates.

Like most Americans, I figure I have the answer

We have had similar problems in fairly recent history. Don't have to go back to the the 1700's. We can look back on our two World Wars for how to handle problems getting cargo through "infested" waters.

Convoys.

We, the US, have our NCSO

All NATO country flagged ships are required to carry a packet, locked in the Capt's safe, that directs them in contacting the nearest NCSO office, should there be a declaration of war (not sure of the specifics of the requirement to report/exactly what conditions would cause an activation of NCSO's actual control of shipping). NCSO is pretty much a Navy Reserve run group. I think there may be one or two active duty Officers involved, but it's basically staffed by reserves.

I only mention our NCSO to point out that there is at least one naval group that is prepared to commence the construction and deployment of convoys, should they get the orders.

I've been mulling this over for a couple of days, and I can't see any major drawbacks to a multi-nation convoy program to get ships around the Horn of Africa. It worked to get our goods and men to England and Russia, against submarines. Surly it would be effective against a bunch of doped up idiots in motor boats.

The draw backs I see are the delay caused by waiting for all the ships to assemble, and the fact that the convoy speed is set by the slowest vassal.

The positive side is that if properly done I believe a small number of escorts could safely get a group of 20-50 cargo ships through the area in question with no (or at least a very minimal) threat.

Being the kind and considerate person I am, I would ensure the escorts had shoot on sight orders. Blow anything approaching the convoy away, and hope the remains wash up on the Somalian coast, just to let the others know what's waiting for them.

MHO is that we wouldn't need near the fire power used in the World Wars. We're talking a much smaller threat without the ability to dive (more than once). While they may be using fairly fast boats, I think with a well designed convoy there should be an escort that could go balls to the wall and head them off, or drop back and intercept. And were not talking about the use of million dollar cruise missiles, a few rounds from a 5 incher or so should pretty much leave splinters where there was once a pirate boat.

There would be some cost of course. However it could also be good training for the war ships and their crews.

I consider this a short term solution. In the long run perhaps the more liberal approaches can have some success, though personally, after our last experience in the country, I have little desire to spend any aid money there. I do concede that in the long run that would be what it will take to help the country and it's people get out of the condition they are in, and possibly become a more functional "neighbor".

So, what's your opinion?

You have a better idea?

Just a friendly what if discussion. Not likely any of our ideas will be implemented as laid out by us, but what the heck, don't cost anything to discuss ideas

 

[richardm]

I think it's a good idea. I would not be at all surprised to see it implemented either. Since insurance companies are now apparently charging up to 10% of the cargo's value to insure to cross that region - which can be around £1,000,000 or more per trip - I'd think that any inconvenience or extra expense would be gladly borne by the shipping companies.

Edit: But since the pirates only need one hit now and then to make it abundantly worthwhile, everyone would have to subscribe to the scheme if we want to make them forgo piracy altogether. Once they've been persuaded that it's a total no-go we can look at convincing them to find alternatives.

Maybe. People do like getting massively rich for little effort, so it's going to be a hard habit to break.

 

[theprestige]

Convoys are less efficient than letting each ship sail on its own most convient schedule, at its own most optimal speed. The cost of the occasional act of piracy is probably still less than the cost of convoying, otherwise shippers would be doing it already

 

[theprestige]

Maybe. People do like getting massively rich for little effort, so it's going to be a hard habit to break.

The habit of maximizing benefits while minimizing detriments? Yeah, that's definitely going to be a hard one to break. Let me know how walking three towns over to buy your groceries is working out for you.

 

[richardm]

Convoys are less efficient than letting each ship sail on its own most convient schedule, at its own most optimal speed. The cost of the occasional act of piracy is probably still less than the cost of convoying, otherwise shippers would be doing it already

Well, there's the rapidly increasing cost of insurance premiums, and also this list of additional costs. At what point do you decide that it's cost effective? Or do you just trust to luck - after all, the odds are that you won't get hijacked.

 

[richardm]

The habit of maximizing benefits while minimizing detriments? Yeah, that's definitely going to be a hard one to break. Let me know how walking three towns over to buy your groceries is working out for you.

Eh?

 

[theprestige]

Well, there's the rapidly increasing cost of insurance premiums, and also this list of additional costs. At what point do you decide that it's cost effective? Or do you just trust to luck - after all, the odds are that you won't get hijacked.

Insurance premiums are based on actuarial tables that are nothing more than a calculation of the odds.

You decide convoying is cost-effective at the point at which the estimated costs of not convoying outweigh the estimated costs of convoying. Just like you do in every other business decision in the entire history of human commerce.

 

[theprestige]

Eh?

I mean, you don't walk three towns over to get your groceries because it makes no sense. The benefit of getting your groceries this way is more than balanced by the detriment of getting your groceries this way.

You make "getting massively rich for little effort" sound like some kind of horrible vice, a "habit" that should be broken. I disagree with this characterization. Getting the most for their effort is something every creature we know of tends to do. I wouldn't have it any other way.

 

[Psi Baba]

What about blockading the Somali coast. Nothing goes in or out beyond a reasonable distance for fishing purposes.

 

[Cleon]

What about blockading the Somali coast. Nothing goes in or out beyond a reasonable distance for fishing purposes.

Blockades are only effective when you're trying to prevent larger ships--such as cargo or military vessels--from entering or leaving.

We're talking about guys in speedboats, here. They're small and easily maneuverable, and unless you're talking about a physical wall, they'd be easily able to get through any blockade without being seen.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Well, there's the rapidly increasing cost of insurance premiums, and also this list of additional costs. At what point do you decide that it's cost effective? Or do you just trust to luck - after all, the odds are that you won't get hijacked.

Also Suez fee's. Some shippers are going around africa because of this, they do not have the demand to require shortest possibly shipping times, and the cost is lower to go around.

 

[Alt+F4]

I'm thinking low-tech. There has to be someway to prevent the pirates from getting on the ships in the first place. Barbed wire around the deck? Nets trailing behind the ships to tangle the speedboats in? Grease up the sides of the ship so the pirate ladders slip?

 

[TragicMonkey]

I have a solution that will not only solve the problem of Somali pirates, but also revitalize Iraq!

The Grand Monkey Canal! (in blue).

 

[TragicMonkey]

On second thoughts, why stop there? Let convenience be our watchword!

 

[This Guy]

Convoys are less efficient than letting each ship sail on its own most convient schedule, at its own most optimal speed. The cost of the occasional act of piracy is probably still less than the cost of convoying, otherwise shippers would be doing it already

I guess I'm thinking more in terms of the potential for loss of life/crew safety.

I've not had much luck searching for the amount of time the typical cargo ship takes to clear the area. That would be a factor. How much time would escorts be needed for each convoy? I don't know the answer. If it is a few days journey the escort cost would be less than if it takes a week or two. I have no idea, and as I said, no luck finding the answer.

During WW II, using convoys did decrease the shipping rate by about a third, if you ignore the loss of shipping to un-escorted ships being sunk. In other words about a third more could be shipped by a ship traveling solo at it's optimum speed, due to getting in more trips/loads in shorter time.

If a convoy system was set up with a set schedule of departure times from some given point, shippers could schedule their deliveries and loadings to make the most efficient use of their time, which would minimize the loss of time due to convoying.

I suspect it wouldn't take too long/too many splintered boats before the pirates got the message. Obviously stopping the convoy system a short time after attacks stop would be foolish. But dropping a few escorts might make good sense?

During the big wars there was a lot more involved. Zigzagging caused a lot of the delay. No need for that in this situation. Not trying to foil torpedo firing solutions, just small arms/hand held rocket fire.

I don't know enough about the logistics involved to form an opinion on the practicality of having "slow" and "fast" convoys, designed for ships that would fit each group.

There are a lot of particulars that would have to be weighed for an intelligent decision to be made about all the pros and cons involved. I'm not in a position to even list all those factors.

I do suspect that most shippers tend to take an isolated view of the situation. A bit of looking out for themselves, with little consideration of other ships/shippers. I think it is possible that if they are presented with a comprehensive plan that would pretty much insure the safe passage of their ships they might find the idea very attractive. Even more so if the insurance companies offer some incentives.

From a pure ship by ship cost comparison of solo or convoy travel, I'm sure the convoy system would incur more cost. How much of that cost the countries involved would be willing to take on (as in using the escort duty as training, and not charging, or charging a fraction of the actual cost involved) would be another factor that would need to be considered. Most countries with a decent navy probably have some portion of their fleets doing training exercises at any given time. Working a rotating convoy escort into that training might be seen as something positive, and worth the cost.

I still think there is good potential for a well planned convoy system to be a short term solution to the problem. But I do appreciate having it's drawbacks presented. And I'm not trying to pretend I actually know what I'm talking about. It just seems like something that worked before, and should be able to work again, with appropriate adjustments for the new, versus the old threat.

 

[This Guy]

On second thoughts, why stop there? Let convenience be our watchword!

I like this plan better!

If done right, the whole Middle East would sink, and solve a multitude of problems!

 

[fuelair]

I think it's a good idea. I would not be at all surprised to see it implemented either. Since insurance companies are now apparently charging up to 10% of the cargo's value to insure to cross that region - which can be around £1,000,000 or more per trip - I'd think that any inconvenience or extra expense would be gladly borne by the shipping companies.

Edit: But since the pirates only need one hit now and then to make it abundantly worthwhile, everyone would have to subscribe to the scheme if we want to make them forgo piracy altogether. Once they've been persuaded that it's a total no-go we can look at convincing them to find alternatives.

Maybe. People do like getting massively rich for little effort, so it's going to be a hard habit to break.

Terminal persuasion would be functional for that.

 

[theprestige]

Terminal persuasion would be functional for that.

Um. That would be maximal detriment for minimal benefit, wouldn't it? Far from breaking people of the habit, it'd just reinforce it.

 

[webfusion]

I'm thinking low-tech. There has to be someway to prevent the pirates from getting on the ships in the first place. Barbed wire around the deck? Nets trailing behind the ships to tangle the speedboats in? Grease up the sides of the ship so the pirate ladders slip?

Sonic Perimeters. LRAD's
http://blog.wired.com/defense/2008/11/admiral-wants-p.html

(Cruise ships were outfitted with such devices after the Achille Lauro hijacking)

 

[rwguinn]

What about blockading the Somali coast. Nothing goes in or out beyond a reasonable distance for fishing purposes.

The problem there is that it takes time.
Much like any other blockade, the blockees wind up, after a few years/months as being very much victims in the eyes of the bleeding hearts (Think of the Children!) and the blockers war-mongering child abusers and are seen as the oppressors.
The original reasoning disappears.
examples:
Cuba
Iraq
Just recent examples...