Somalian pirates seize ship carrying military tanks

[Lonestar]

Meanwhile visual lookouts become tired and bored very quickly, and thus need regular relief to stay effective, you can’t have them pulling eight hour shifts.

Ha!


Sure thing buddy.

[Sea Skimmer]

Ha!


Sure thing buddy.

So are you actually going to say anything constructive or just spam? A fucking dhow was able to sail all the way through a USN task force in the Persian Gulf when all of 50 miles from Iran and ram into JFK in 2004. Just because you might force men to stand on duty for longer doesn’t mean that actually works, and current USn planning basically intends to replace them entirely with a computerized IRST that will just sound an alarm and asked someone to a visual ID on contacts when it finds them.

[Sidewinder]

I'm curious: since the updated article states those tanks were going to the Kenyan military, what are the chances the Kenyans will launch a commando raid to get those high-dollar items back, or ask SOCOM to launch the raid?

[TrailerParkJawa]

When I read this story today I couldn't help but wonder what the pirates thought as soon as they realized they'd captured a ship with 33 tanks. At first they may have been wildly elated until the realization set in that you can't pawn off a tank like you can a crate of RPG's and that someone is likely to be be watching this ship very closely.

[Lonestar]

So are you actually going to say anything constructive or just spam?

I don't know, are you going to do anything other than pontificate from your armchair, general?

A fucking dhow was able to sail all the way through a USN task force in the Persian Gulf when all of 50 miles from Iran and ram into JFK in 2004.

Oh boy, a nighttime(lights outside the skin of the ship are off, and I've NEVER seen a dhow with significant lighting.) incident with flight ops going on. The incident is certainly damning of the entire system.

Maybe if it were in broad fucking daylight it would be, but not in the conditions that occurred.

And the JFK was almost certainly NOT deployed with a "Task Force" around it. Nowadays the the USN only moves around in strike groups when transiting(and sometimes not even then) to a previously defined AO. Then it splits off, Carriers and 'Phibs MAY end up in the Arabian Gulf (which is filled with Italian and German ships performing circle jerks and not making even a half-assed effort the coordinate anything with 5th Fleet) and the escorts end up in the Northern Arabian Sea performing MIO duties.

Just because you might force men to stand on duty for longer doesn’t mean that actually works, and current USn planning basically intends to replace them entirely with a computerized IRST that will just sound an alarm and asked someone to a visual ID on contacts when it finds them.

Yeah, just like adding external cameras to the ship has improved Force Protection. After all, it's much easier to "touch and go" sitting in CIC than standing outside on the bridgewings.

"Automation" is something the USN is creaming it's pants over. More likely the IRST will be used to supplement existing watchstanders, not replace them.

[Axis Kast]

The Kenyan angle does make sense. The Sudanese have license production the Chinese Type 96 tank.

The tanks were supposedly going to S. Sudan (although they were actually part a Kenyan deal with the Ukraine). So, they would've ended up in the hands of the Sudan People's Liberation Army, not the Sudanese regular military, if the whole report had been true, which it wasn't.

[Sea Skimmer]

I don't know, are you going to do anything other than pontificate from your armchair, general?

Whatever, at least I don’t waste bandwidth one line sniping at other people’s posts when I could easily contribute. Our military is ultimately run by armchair generals anyway, and ones who often seem to read very few books, doesn't that make you happy?

Oh boy, a nighttime(lights outside the skin of the ship are off, and I've NEVER seen a dhow with significant lighting.) incident with flight ops going on. The incident is certainly damning of the entire system.

Maybe if it were in broad fucking daylight it would be, but not in the conditions that occurred.

So because it’s at night, it doesn’t matter? Is that what you’re saying? That’s fucking insane. And the incident IS damning and a sign of incompetence, the USN relieved the captain of the ship for the incident.

Bad weather or rain I could understand, but it was just darkness and that is no damn excuse. If the lookouts cant see in mere darkness then our or billion dollar warships ought to be equipped with night vision devices for them. The freaking Japanese had dedicated mounted and handheld binocular night optics all the way back in 1942, and used them to kick the USNs ass a half dozen times in the Solomon’s. Were talking about thousands of dollars for ships that cost tens or hundreds of millions just to operate each year.

Well anyway, since apparently darkness is too much for even USN lookouts on a supercarrier that was conduct active flight operations, this certainly supports my position that a placing worthwhile ones on a cargo ship would end up being to expensive.

And the JFK was almost certainly NOT deployed with a "Task Force" around it. Nowadays the the USN only moves around in strike groups when transiting(and sometimes not even then) to a previously defined AO. Then it splits off, Carriers and 'Phibs MAY end up in the Arabian Gulf (which is filled with Italian and German ships performing circle jerks and not making even a half-assed effort the coordinate anything with 5th Fleet) and the escorts end up in the Northern Arabian Sea performing MIO duties.

It shouldn’t matter one bit either way, it’s a ship with six thousand people onboard and they can’t see what could have been a five ton floating bomb because it’s dark? Anyway, I know for a fact that they did have an escort close at hand, abet as I recall it was British.

Yeah, just like adding external cameras to the ship has improved Force Protection. After all, it's much easier to "touch and go" sitting in CIC than standing outside on the bridgewings.

"Automation" is something the USN is creaming it's pants over. More likely the IRST will be used to supplement existing watchstanders, not replace them.

Well if certain factions get their way, the bridge on a Tico/Burke/DDG-1000 will be manned by just three men, as I recall they won’t even have a helmsmen, and none of those jobs is a lookout. In fact… this is directly a result of studies into large cargo ships which are able to operate with crews of 30-40 total. Insane, but that’s what happens when a fleet has no enemy to face. It gets lazy and eccentric. The British put on the best show of that in the latter 19th century.

Edit: Nevermind I checked and they do want to keep a helmsmen on the bridge, but the helm will be wired into the CIC too. The other postions are guy watching a radar scope, and an officer at a 'command console'.. and thats it.

[Kanastrous]

Oh boy, a nighttime(lights outside the skin of the ship are off, and I've NEVER seen a dhow with significant lighting.) incident with flight ops going on. The incident is certainly damning of the entire system.

Given that it creates the impression that all you need is a dhow, some nvgs, a couple tons of high explosives and a death wish, to possibly ding up a USN carrier, it does seem at least a little bit significant.

From a layman's perspective, anyway.

[Pelranius]

The Kenyan angle does make sense. The Sudanese have license production the Chinese Type 96 tank.

The tanks were supposedly going to S. Sudan (although they were actually part a Kenyan deal with the Ukraine). So, they would've ended up in the hands of the Sudan People's Liberation Army, not the Sudanese regular military, if the whole report had been true, which it wasn't.

Hmm, wasn't aware that the ceasefire allowed for the SPLA to actually import its own weapons.

[Axis Kast]

One might assume they would try, by hook or by crook, since the Sudan doesn't seem to have ceased attempting force improvement, AFAIK.

Today, my best guess is that there'll be another civil war (or at least a hard series of battles) as the South secedes in 2011. It's the smart thing for them to build up.

[CJvR]

Respecting Somali territorial waters!!! Jezz how pathetic is that, almost as patehtic as Denmark releasing the pirates they DID manage to catch. There is NO Somalia - that is the problem. Whoever let lawyers direct security policy should be shot.

I have a computer printout on my wall called "Payment in iron" from an era when the worlds navies weren't neutered.

[CJvR]

Also a little ugly thought that this might not just be a pirate operation but a sponsored action, Khartoum would have a significant intrest in stopping this ship and they have plenty of Islamist connections.

[ExarKun]

They don't... I'm reasonably sure even if the Russian navy crew were a bunch of bumbling, Police Academy level incompetents (which they most likely aren't... The nineties can't have been that bad ) they'd still be easily able to fend off even the most bad-ass Somalian incarnation of Eddie Teach. Simply by virtue of, you know, the Somalis being armed with speedboats and small-arms, and the Russians having a frigate stuffed with fancy missiles, loads of machineguns, and a big-ass gun.

They don't fight ship to ship, they board them

[Siege]

They don't fight ship to ship, they board them

Yes, I'm quite aware of that. Thing is, if you're Edward Teach incarnate and you want to board a Russian frigate, you still have to get past the fancy missiles, the machineguns, and the giant cannon mounted on the prow. Not to mention the naval infantry, the crewmen, and all the fancy small arms they will undoubtedly have strapped onto themselves.

We're not talking about a bulk carrier with a Philippino rent-a-crew here, this is the Neustrashimy. There's a difference.

[Sidewinder]

They don't... I'm reasonably sure even if the Russian navy crew were a bunch of bumbling, Police Academy level incompetents (which they most likely aren't... The nineties can't have been that bad ) they'd still be easily able to fend off even the most bad-ass Somalian incarnation of Eddie Teach. Simply by virtue of, you know, the Somalis being armed with speedboats and small-arms, and the Russians having a frigate stuffed with fancy missiles, loads of machineguns, and a big-ass gun.

They don't fight ship to ship, they board them

We're talking about a WARSHIP. What kind of warship sails around without an armory large enough to equip the security personnel onboard (and before you ask, it's a WARSHIP, so it'll have military policemen to grab troublemakers and a brig to throw them into)?

If pirates try to board the warship (assuming they can get close enough without getting their asses shot off, and after the attack on the USS Cole, I doubt the USN is the only one with crews that get paranoia and itchy trigger fingers when unidentified vessels approach their ship), they won't be facing unarmed civilians who're there just to earn a paycheck and who don't think fighting back is worth the risk to their lives (the owners of the ship and its cargo are likely to have insurance, i.e., financial compensation for their losses), but MILITARY PERSONNEL who know their careers are toast if they let a bunch of Jack Sparrow wannabes make off with their WARSHIP.

[Soontir C'boath]

Pirates 'want $35m for tank ship'

Pirates who seized a Ukrainian ship off the coast of Somalia have reportedly demanded a ransom of $35m (£19m) to release the vessel and its crew.

The pirates also warned against any attempt to rescue the crew or cargo of the MV Faina, which is carrying 33 T-72 battle tanks destined for Kenya.

But the Kenyan government later denied it had been issued with ransom demands.

A Russian Navy vessel is heading to the region and the US has said it is also monitoring developments in the area.

Ethiopia's Prime Minister, Meles Zenawi, said he was concerned by the seizure of the military supplies on board the Ukrainian ship.
"They could be used to destabilise the region, and the whole situation on the high seas is a matter of great concern for all of us," he told reporters in New York before a meeting with US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.

"We very much hope the international community will respond."

The official Egyptian news agency, Mena, meanwhile has said that an Egyptian ship with 25 crew, which was hijacked by pirates earlier this month off the coast of Somalia's semi-autonomous region of Puntland, had been freed.

A local official in northern Somalia said a Japanese cargo vessel had also been released after a ransom was paid.

International concern

In an interview with the BBC, one of the pirates, Januna Ali Jama, claiming to be speaking on their behalf, said they were prepared to negotiate with the Kenyan government, but would not release MV Faina unless the ransom was paid.


"We are warning France and others who are thinking of carrying out a rescue that we have the power to reach them wherever they are," he said.

"We are demanding a ransom of at least $35m."

But later in a tersely-worded statement, a spokesman for the Kenyan government said they had not received any credible demands for a ransom to release the ship.

He went on to say that the government would not negotiate with what it called international criminals, pirates and terrorists, and said efforts to recover the hijacked ship and its cargo would continue.

The BBC's Karen Allen in Nairobi says there is growing international concern for the fate of the Ukrainian vessel, which went missing in what are considered some of the world's most dangerous waters.

There are unconfirmed reports, our correspondent says, that it is currently being steered by the pirates towards ports just north of the Somali capital, Mogadishu - an area controlled by Islamist militants.

'Big business'

On Friday, Ukrainian Defence Minister Yury Yekhanurov confirmed that 33 Russian T-72 tanks and "a substantial quantity of ammunition" were aboard the MV Faina.

Ukraine's foreign ministry said the ship had a crew of 21 and was sailing towards the Kenyan port of Mombasa.

The ship's captain had reported being surrounded by three boats of armed men on Thursday afternoon, it said.

Earlier reports suggested that the cargo had been destined for south Sudan, but Kenyan government spokesman Alfred Mutua confirmed the tanks were heading to Kenya.

"The cargo in the ship includes military hardware such as tanks and an assortment of spare parts for use by different branches of the Kenyan military," he said.

Security analyst Knox Chitiyo told the BBC the latest incident showed the waters off Somalia's coast had become a "global security problem".

"Piracy has become big business and there seems to be no concerted response to the problem," said Mr Chitiyo, from the London-based Royal United Services Institute.

'Mother ships'

Authorities in Puntland say they are powerless to confront the pirates, who regularly hold ships for ransom at the port of Eyl.

Senior UN officials estimate the ransoms pirates earn from hijacking ships exceed $100m (£54m) a year.

Pirate "mother ships" travel far out to sea and launch smaller boats to attack passing vessels, sometimes using rocket-propelled grenades.

Last week, France circulated a draft UN resolution urging states to deploy naval vessels and aircraft to combat such piracy.

France, which has troops in nearby Djibouti and also participates in a multi-national naval force patrol in the area, has intervened twice to release French sailors kidnapped by pirates.

Commandos freed two people whose boat was hijacked in the Gulf of Aden earlier this month and in April, six arrested pirates were handed over to the French authorities for trial.

Russia announced on Friday it would start carrying out regular anti-piracy patrols in the waters off Somalia to protect Russian citizens and ships. A warship was sent to the area earlier this week.

Somalia has been without a functioning central government for 17 years and has suffered from continual civil strife.

Ok, so it's understandable that other cargo with ransom of ~$1M isn't worth a security detail to crew all those ships but this one had a cargo of 33 tanks and they want $35M. Assuming this is a legit demand, congratulations!

[Tsyroc]

Ha!


Sure thing buddy.

So are you actually going to say anything constructive or just spam? A fucking dhow was able to sail all the way through a USN task force in the Persian Gulf when all of 50 miles from Iran and ram into JFK in 2004. Just because you might force men to stand on duty for longer doesn’t mean that actually works, and current USn planning basically intends to replace them entirely with a computerized IRST that will just sound an alarm and asked someone to a visual ID on contacts when it finds them.

I kind of thought he was agreeing with you in a way since he seems to be scoffing at the bit about making people stand 8 hour watch shifts since they are very common in the USN. I know I did plenty of them as an EW, which is essentially an electronic look out.

It is a stupid idea to have someone standing a watch that long that is supposed to require alertness and being attentive to the surrounding area, but staffing issues, lax attitudes, and senior people keeping themselves out of the watch rotation will often result in crazy watch schedules.

[Tsyroc]

So because it’s at night, it doesn’t matter? Is that what you’re saying? That’s fucking insane. And the incident IS damning and a sign of incompetence, the USN relieved the captain of the ship for the incident.

Bad weather or rain I could understand, but it was just darkness and that is no damn excuse. If the lookouts cant see in mere darkness then our or billion dollar warships ought to be equipped with night vision devices for them. The freaking Japanese had dedicated mounted and handheld binocular night optics all the way back in 1942, and used them to kick the USNs ass a half dozen times in the Solomon’s. Were talking about thousands of dollars for ships that cost tens or hundreds of millions just to operate each year.

Well anyway, since apparently darkness is too much for even USN lookouts on a supercarrier that was conduct active flight operations, this certainly supports my position that a placing worthwhile ones on a cargo ship would end up being to expensive.

I'm actually kind of surprised that the visual lookouts aren't equipped with night vision devices of some sorts these days. It's not like they need the latest, greatest top of the line super light weight ones to at least do some good. You'd think that some of the squadrons would have some extras or older models sitting around that could be reassigned or something.

If the kind they use are just the light amplifying kind it's not like they have to worry about someone picking up IR illuminators from further away than the yellow flight deck lights can bee seen since there won't be any.

[MKSheppard]

Maybe if it were in broad fucking daylight it would be, but not in the conditions that occurred.

We've had ample surface search radar sets since oh, about 1943ish on our ships.

And the JFK was almost certainly NOT deployed with a "Task Force" around it.

Not even a screen of surface combatants?

[Ender]

We've had ample surface search radar sets since oh, about 1943ish on our ships.

Setting aside the fact that wood and fiberglass have an absolutely shitty scattering coefficient (wow, it's almost like they are carbon heavy materials!), since when are lookout watchstanders (since those are who Lonestar was talking about) equipped with the man-portable radar you claim we have had since the 40s?

Not even a screen of surface combatants?

Your closest surface escort is well over the horizon. Only time you will ever see another ship is when transiting a restricted zone (eg Straits of Gibraltar) or are doing an UNREP. Typically the groups break off to cover a larger area, achieve other objectives, and present less of a target.

[MKSheppard]

Setting aside the fact that wood and fiberglass have an absolutely shitty scattering coefficient (wow, it's almost like they are carbon heavy materials!)

Wow; I didn't know you could somehow magic all the metal in a dhow's construction into nothingness.

since when are lookout watchstanders (since those are who Lonestar was talking about) equipped with the man-portable radar you claim we have had since the 40s?

It's called the AN/SPS-55.

Your closest surface escort is well over the horizon.

So there IS a surface escort. So where the hell was everyone that night?

[Admiral Valdemar]

A USN destroyer has sighted the captured freighter and is in pursuit. It's looking like the USMC may get their quarry before the Russians.

[Ender]

Wow; I didn't know you could somehow magic all the metal in a dhow's construction into nothingness.

Tell you what Shep, lets see some numbers. I went with the material that makes up the bulk of most dhows, since you want to contest that the limited metal on it is sufficient lets see some number crunching.

It's called the AN/SPS-55.

No shit. It is also used by CNC, not the lookout watchstanders. So again, since when are the lookout watchstanders equipped with radar?

So there IS a surface escort. So where the hell was everyone that night?

So far away that the JFK is essentially alone. Do you have a reading comprehension problem?

[Siege]

A USN destroyer has sighted the captured freighter and is in pursuit. It's looking like the USMC may get their quarry before the Russians.

Beeb article on the situation:

US destroyer nears Somali pirates

A US navy destroyer has made visual contact with a Ukrainian ship which was seized by Somali pirates last week and is now moored off the town of Hobyo.

There is no indication that the USS Howard intends to approach the MV Faina, which is carrying 33 T-72 battle tanks destined for Kenya's government.

The pirates' ransom demand has fallen from $35m to $5m (£2.7m), a US navy spokesman has said.

A man on the ship also told the BBC that one of the crew members had died. The man, who the pirates said was its captain, was speaking via satellite phone after being given it by one of the pirates.

The man said the dead sailor was a Russian and had died as the result of an illness. He also said the other crew members were fine and that he could see three ships about a mile away, including one carrying an US flag.

International concern

In an earlier interview with the BBC, a spokesman for the US Navy's 5th Fleet, Lt Nathan Christensen, said the USS Howard was within 8km (5 miles) from the Ukrainian vessel, but refused to say whether an intervention was likely.

"The USS Howard… [is] currently on station, in visual contact and is monitoring the situation there," he said.

"The motor vessel is anchored off the Somali coast, near the town of Hobyo, along with, actually, a couple of other pirated vessels that are also anchored in that location."

Lt Christensen said the USS Howard had been in contact with MV Faina using VHF radio, and that negotiations were continuing between the pirates and its owners.

"The [ransom] demands are now down to about $5m," he said.

If I were those pirates, the sight of a USN destroyer approaching my hijacked ship would cause me to worry quite considerably. After all, there just might be a bunch of marines aboard dying to kick some pirate ass.

[PeZook]

So...the USN destroyer is actually negotiating with the pirates?

I wonder if they'll pay the five million, or go the French route.