Somalian pirates seize ship carrying military tanks

[MKSheppard]

Tell you what Shep, lets see some numbers.

Yeah, Ender. I'm sure that the somalis have somehow managed to make radar-transparent metallic alloys for all the various pieces of hardware that are required by a craft, such as cleats, tackles, pulleys, et al; which do form really nice corner reflectors....

Not to mention that since oh, the 1950s, we've had surface search sets that can reliably track submarine periscopes extended a few feet above the sea surface, which are much harder targets to find than a Dhow.

No shit. It is also used by CNC, not the lookout watchstanders.

Yeah, and the Japanese managed to defeat us in the battle of Suriago Strait, with their watchstanders detecting the US ships at ranges greater than the US ships' CIC radar operators could detect the Japanese ships......... Oh wait.....

So again, since when are the lookout watchstanders equipped with radar?

Are you always this stupid, or do you have to practice at it? You're putting words into my mouth where there are none.

Lonestar said this:

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

to which I replied with

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

Which is you know, the truth.

You're the one who inflated this into some sort of "lol watchstanders must have some sort of hand held portable radar!" garbage-fest.

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

No, you're the one who has a reading comprehension problem. You're basically saying that the entire complement of that Battlegroup was incompetent beyond words. The ships might be over the visual horizon, but not the radar horizon for their sensors; and you're telling me that not one person in a CIC that night didn't pick up the radar track that was the Dhow and go: "Hey wait a minute, that's not the JFK, nor the SOMERSET; and why is it straying into the exclusion zone around the carrier?"

[Kanastrous]

Are the MTBF of the equipment - and average operator performance - so great that an extra few people with binoculars and nvgs are actually a bad idea?

[Ender]

Tell you what Shep, lets see some numbers.

Yeah, Ender. I'm sure that the somalis have somehow managed to make radar-transparent metallic alloys for all the various pieces of hardware that are required by a craft, such as cleats, tackles, pulleys, et al; which do form really nice corner reflectors....

Not to mention that since oh, the 1950s, we've had surface search sets that can reliably track submarine periscopes extended a few feet above the sea surface, which are much harder targets to find than a Dhow.

Keep going after those strawmen Shep, that way the wicked witch of the west will be safe.

Or you could show me where I claimed metal was radar transparent, instead of just asking you to back up your claims that the return from a few metal parts would be sufficient for the filter software to not regard it as an glitch.

And shep the periscopes are hard to find because of size relative to area, not because of radar return. So you are back at square one.

Yeah, and the Japanese managed to defeat us in the battle of Suriago Strait, with their watchstanders detecting the US ships at ranges greater than the US ships' CIC radar operators could detect the Japanese ships......... Oh wait.....

Wheee, red herrings

So again, since when are the lookout watchstanders equipped with radar?

Are you always this stupid, or do you have to practice at it? You're putting words into my mouth where there are none.

Lonestar said this:

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

to which I replied with

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

Which is you know, the truth.

And the topic of discussion was the watchstanders. Hence why the fact it was at night and they don't have NVGs matter.

So was this another red herring, or just another failure at reading comprehension from you?

You're the one who inflated this into some sort of "lol watchstanders must have some sort of hand held portable radar!" garbage-fest.

We have been talking about the watchstanders throughout. Hence the discussion of what they could see, NVGs, 8 hour shifts, night vs day, etc. No one really knows what the hell you are carrying on about.

No, you're the one who has a reading comprehension problem. You're basically saying that the entire complement of that Battlegroup was incompetent beyond words. The ships might be over the visual horizon, but not the radar horizon for their sensors; and you're telling me that not one person in a CIC that night didn't pick up the radar track that was the Dhow and go: "Hey wait a minute, that's not the JFK, nor the SOMERSET; and why is it straying into the exclusion zone around the carrier?"

No, I'm saying that the task force splits off and there are virtually no escorts around it. You keep contesting this.

[Lonestar]

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

You seem to be operating under the misunderstanding that radars are switched on at night...they typically aren't, for obvious reasons.

(HERE I AM! HHHHHHHHHHEEEEEEEEEERRE I AM! *waves flashlight around in the dark*)

Not even a screen of surface combatants?

It looks like the HMS Somerset ("Hurr hurr we're the RN and we deploy with 1/3 of our equipment nonfunctional") was playing planeguard duty, which, of course, means they probably weren't playing look out as much as they should have.

There probably were other coalition ships in the AO floating around, but not necessarily "You stay there, you stay there, and you stay there...all at x distance from the carrier." I would, in fact, rate that to be an unlikely happenstance in the Arabian Gulf.

[Lonestar]

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?

Why, one would think that they(The flag officers) didn't go to some kind of college...of war!

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.

I'm saying "Shit happens, more so at night than during the day." I totally agree that the captain should have been relieved...because, so sad too bad someone's head has to roll for this(too bad it wasn't the CMC, where waterfront RUMINT reported he had had restraining orders put on him by junior enlisted, which should tell you the condition of the crew morale on the JFK).

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.

So, then you agree that it wasn't watchstanding practices necessarily that cause it, but, oh, conditions? Unless you are seriously implying that at least 4 lookouts(going by the number we had on our CG, on one side of the ship. Not counting people who might just happen to be outside at the moment. Or everyone on the bridge. Or the likelihood that a CV has more topside watchstanders than a CG, or the people on the planeguard ship...) missed the dhow due to sleeping on the job?

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.

Not necessarily disagreeing with you there on whether or not NVGs should be handed off to lookouts. I know on my ship we ALL the main passageways(even the ones below the maindecks) switched to redlighting to help topside watchstanders rather than issuing NV gear.

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.

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.

They had a planeguard ship, which is different from being an "escort". Of course I personally have a rather dim view on RN practices due to their various (in)actions in our AO on my deployments.

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.

Then that's insane. One Helmsman, one guy at the "Bright Bridge", and an OOD? That's it? That won't last too long in the fleet. Like how the "Smart Ship" upgrades are suppose to reduce engineering watchstanding, which is great until there are only two guys in CCS(I think I may have butchered that, I'm sure Ender will be along shortly to tell me so) and one of them is dozing because his ass has been in that chair for several hours staring at numbers or, in some cases, camera feeds pointed at meters somewhere in the ship. Suddenly, ships with those upgrades end up retaining engineering rover watches anyway...

[MKSheppard]

You seem to be operating under the misunderstanding that radars are switched on at night...they typically aren't, for obvious reasons.

Except the John F Kennedy was conducting flight operations and was navigating in a very crowded water way at the same time.

Either one of those needs radars to be lit off. In one case it's for airspace control and deconfliction with flight ops, in the other it's so you don't ram a supertanker in the middle of the night with a warship that costs billions.

Secondly, every USN ship has a basic Furuno navigational radar that's quite adequate for surface search -- if they light it off; guess what? How are the Iranians going to figure out that this radar is mounted on a warship, and not one of the eleventy billion tankers in the Gulf?

[Lonestar]

Except the John F Kennedy was conducting flight operations and was navigating in a very crowded water way at the same time.

Either one of those needs radars to be lit off. In one case it's for airspace control and deconfliction with flight ops, in the other it's so you don't ram a supertanker in the middle of the night with a warship that costs billions.

Secondly, every USN ship has a basic Furuno navigational radar that's quite adequate for surface search -- if they light it off; guess what? How are the Iranians going to figure out that this radar is mounted on a warship, and not one of the eleventy billion tankers in the Gulf?

I already answered this in the chat, but I'll go ahead and repeat it:

USN vessels(and RN vessels) typically do not turn on ANY radar at night, unless they are entering or leaving port. Certainly, they do not do so in the GOO, for instance.

Now you say "Oh but how would the Iranians know it's them?"

Well, while I doubt the Iranians can do much of the ELINT we can, we typically act as if they can. So if the Iranians can associate a commercial radar with a USN vessel once, we assume that they can follow us on the basis of that radar from there on out.

[Sidewinder]

"Hurr hurr we're the RN and we deploy with 1/3 of our equipment nonfunctional"

Are you serious?! I know British politicians have an unfortunate tendency to put defense on the chopping block as the first thing to do when there's a budget crisis, but deploying military units with 33% of their equipment nonfunctional?! That's something I expect from cash-strapped third world navies (Russia before Putin & Co. throw enough money to its Navy, China before the PLAN finally gets its act together, Arab nations, Africa), not from a nation that's the fifth largest economy in the world (second largest in Europe) and simultaneously a member of the UN Security Council, the second-most important member of NATO, and a nuclear power!

[Lonestar]

Are you serious?! I know British politicians have an unfortunate tendency to put defense on the chopping block as the first thing to do when there's a budget crisis, but deploying military units with 33% of their equipment nonfunctional?! That's something I expect from cash-strapped third world navies (Russia before Putin & Co. throw enough money to its Navy, China before the PLAN finally gets its act together, Arab nations, Africa), not from a nation that's the fifth largest economy in the world (second largest in Europe) and simultaneously a member of the UN Security Council, the second-most important member of NATO, and a nuclear power!

I'm exaggerating a little bit. I'm talking about multiple instances on my deployment when a RN vessel couldn't follow a COI because their surface search was broken. And their SIGINT gear. And they only had one RHIB.

So if we were to say, "Hey we got a COI"(meaning a 'simple fishing dhow' just did something interesting, like use a satellite phone) "near you, go follow it" and the RN vessel would follow it very closely...but wouldn't board it due to lack of RHIBs(plural), wouldn't stand off and track it with surface search and wait for another coalition ship(usually USN, RAN, FN, or the Singaporeans) to make the pick up. So when day would break the COI would see this warship following them, and make a run North-Northwest for Yemeni territorial waters. We lost a couple of COIs that way.

Skimmer was talking about NVGs earlier, the Northern Arabian Sea is crawling with smugglers who have NVGs and signaling stuff that only shows up when you use night vision gear. So yes, that means they may notice an RN vessel following it and veer North BEFORE daybreak.

[The Kernel]

UPDATE: Pirates are celebrating their standoff...

(CNN) -- The standoff in the Indian Ocean over a ship laden with tanks and weapons entered a sixth day Tuesday, with pirates claiming they were celebrating the Muslim feast of Eid al-Fitr despite being surrounded by American warships and helicopters.


A photo from the USS Howard shows Somali pirates in small boats hijacking the MV Faina last week.

No solution to their $20 million ransom demand for the Ukrainian cargo ship Faina was yet in sight.

"We are happy on the ship and we are celebrating Eid," pirate spokesman Sugule Ali told The Associated Press by satellite phone. "Nothing has changed."

Ali did not say whether the ship's 21-member crew, which includes Ukrainians, Russians and a Latvian, would be included in the feast that marks the end of the holy month of Ramadan. One crew member has died, of an apparent heart attack.

There were unconfirmed reports Tuesday of shootings on the ship, but it was not clear whether that was related to the feast or reflected tensions on the ship.

Elsewhere in Somalia, pirates freed a Malaysian tanker Tuesday after a ransom was paid, according to a Malaysian shipping company.

The blue-and-white Ukrainian ship Faina has been buzzed by American helicopters since Sunday. Pirates hijacked the Faina and its cargo of 33 Soviet-designed tanks and weapons Thursday while the ship was passing through the Gulf of Aden, one of the world's busiest shipping lanes, en route to the Kenyan port of Mombasa.

Ali said the vessel was surrounded by four warships but he could not identify where the ships were from. The San Diego-based USS guided missile destroyer Howard has been watching the pirate ship for several days and has spoken the pirates and crew by radio.

On Monday, U.S. naval officials said several other American ships had joined the watch, but declined to give details.

U.S. Navy officials said they have allowed the pirates to resupply the ship with food and water, but not to unload any of its military cargo, which included T-72 tanks, ammunition, and heavy weapons that U.S. Defense officials have said included rocket launchers.

The U.S. fears the armaments may end up with al Qaeda-linked Islamic militants who have been fighting an insurgency against the shaky, U.N.-backed Somali transitional government since late 2006, when the Islamists were driven out after six months in power. More than 9,000 people, most of them civilians, have been killed in the Iraq-style insurgency. Watch how experts believe piracy could aid terrorists »

"Our goal is to ensure the safety of the crew, to not allow off-loading of dangerous cargo and to make certain Faina can return to legitimate shipping," said Rear Adm. Kendall Card, commander of the task force monitoring the ship.

Russia has also dispatched a warship to the area, but it will take about a week to get there.

American military officials and diplomats say the weapons are destined for southern Sudan.

The oil-rich south was promised a referendum in 2011 on independence from the rest of Sudan as part of a peace deal that ended a 21-year civil war three years ago. Southern Sudanese officials said they were "surprised" to hear reports that the tanks and arms were destined for them.

Meanwhile, the Malaysian shipping line MISC Berhad said Tuesday that Somalia pirates released the seized palm oil tanker, MT Bunga Melati 2, on Monday, two days after its first vessel was released.

Don't Miss
U.S. ship fires shots toward boats off Somalia
French hostages freed in gunbattle with pirates
Chairman Hassan Marican said a ransom was paid for both vessels but declined to reveal the amount. All 79 crew on both ships are safe but were traumatized and will undergo counseling, he said.

Piracy has become a lucrative criminal racket in impoverished Somalia, bringing in millions of dollars in ransom. There have been 24 reported attacks in Somalia this year, according to the International Maritime Bureau.

Most pirate attacks occur in the Gulf of Aden, one of the world's busiest shipping lanes, to the north of Somalia. But recently pirates have been targeting Indian Ocean waters off eastern Somalia.

In all, 62 ships have been attacked in the notorious African waters this year. A total of 26 ships were hijacked, and 12 remain in the hands of the pirates along with more than 200 crew members.

International warships are patrolling the area and have created a special security corridor under a U.S.-led initiative, but attacks have not abated. E-mail to a friend

Can someone explain to me why the hell the US Navy doesn't just sink the goddamn thing? I feel bad for the crew, I really do, but a message needs to be sent to this criminals that piracy won't be tolerated.

[Siege]

Sink it? Can't they just board it, shoot the pirates, and be on their merry way? Sinking a perfectly good ship sounds a bit heavy-handed to me...

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

I think if they sink the damn boat, they would bloody embarrass their "allies", the Ukrainians.

[Isolder74]

Reports are uncomfirmed! But it appears Marines kick butt!

3 Pirates Believed Dead in ShootoutBy MOHAMED OLAD HASSAN, AP
posted: 7 HOURS 46 MINUTES AGOcomments: 2820filed under: World NewsPrintShareText SizeAAAMOGADISHU, Somalia (Sept. 30) - Somali pirates said Tuesday they celebrated a Muslim holiday aboard a hijacked freighter and denied reports that three comrades were killed in a shootout on the vessel, which is being closely watched by a half-dozen U.S. warships.
Trouble Off Somalian CoastJason R. Zalasky, U.S. Navy / AP7 photos A tense standoff at sea entered a sixth day Tuesday with U.S. warships and helicopters monitoring a cargo ship that's been hijacked by Somali pirates who want $20 million. A U.S. official said he believed a report that three pirates died in a shootout was true. The pirates denied the report.(Note: Please disable your pop-up blocker)

The hijacking of the MV Faina — laden with 33 Soviet-made T-72 tanks, rifles and heavy weapons that U.S. defense officials have said included rocket launchers — was the highest-profile act of piracy in the dangerous waters this year. The U.S. Navy has said it wants to keep the arms out of the hands of militants linked to al-Qaida in impoverished Somalia, a key battleground in the war on terrorism.
The pirates are demanding $20 million in ransom for the ship, which they boarded Thursday in the Indian Ocean off the Somali coast. There was a crew of 21 Russians and Ukrainians aboard, but the captain later died.
U.S. officials said 40-50 pirates were involved, but only about 30 were on the ship itself.
A Kenyan maritime official cited an unconfirmed report that three of the pirates were killed Monday night in a dispute over whether to surrender. Speaking on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to talk on the record, a U.S. official in Washington said he believed that report was true. But the Pentagon had not confirmed the report by late Tuesday.
A spokesman for the pirates said the shootout report was false.
"We are happy on the ship, and we are celebrating" Eid al-Fitr, which marks the end of Ramadan, spokesman Sugule Ali told The Associated Press by satellite telephone. "Nothing has changed."
"We didn't dispute over a single thing, let alone have a shootout," Ali said.
Attempts to contact him later Tuesday failed. A man answering his phone said Ali was "very tired" and was asleep.
The vessel, anchored off the central Somali town of Hobyo, is surrounded by U.S. warships and helicopters. Moscow has dispatched a warship to the scene to protect the lives of the Russians aboard the captive vessel.
Piracy is a lucrative criminal racket in the region, bringing in tens of millions of dollars a year. There have been 24 reported attacks in Somalia this year, according to the International Maritime Bureau.
Defense Department spokesman Geoff Morrell said officials are working on securing the region's waterways but he gave no details. He told reporters at the Pentagon that the piracy issue "has drawn the attention of high-ranking people within this building."
Morrell said he had no information to confirm there had been a gunfight on the ship and that three might have been killed.
The destroyer USS Howard and several other U.S. ships have surrounded the Faina at a distance of about 10 miles — sometimes closer. Helicopters watched from above.
U.S. Navy officials from the 5th Fleet said they have allowed the pirates to resupply the ship with food and water, but not to unload any military cargo.
Ukrainian news agencies have said the ship's operator is Tomex Team, based in the Black Sea port of Odessa. A Russian-based ship register indicates that Tomex Team is a subsidiary of the Faina's owner, Panama-based Waterlux AG.
The U.S. fears the arms may end up with the militants who have been waging an insurgency against the shaky, U.N.-backed Somali transitional government since late 2006, when the Islamic fighters were driven out after six months in power. More than 9,000 people, most of them civilians, have been killed.
U.S. military officials and diplomats say the weapons are destined for southern Sudan. But Morrell said: "We take — and have no reason not to take — the president of Kenya at his word when he expressed to the president of the United States yesterday that this shipment was bound for his government, which is ... a peaceful government with legitimate self-defense needs."
Russian media reported that the Faina's first mate, Vladimir Nikolsky, said its captain, Vladimir Kolobkov, had suffered from heat stroke. The ITAR-Tass news agency said Kolobkov died of a stroke Sunday, and that the vessel has a crew of two Russians, 17 Ukrainians and one from Latvia.
The Russian navy has said it ordered the guided missile frigate Neustrashimy, or Intrepid, to the northwest Indian Ocean to protect commercial shipping lanes and defend the lives of Russian citizens. It is expected to take about a week to arrive.
Morrell said the U.S. Navy has enough ships in the area "to deal with the situation at hand."
"But this involves Russian cargo, as I understand it, so I don't think that we have a particular issue with the Russians coming on the scene, as well. And we will obviously work hard to coordinate, once they are on scene," he added.
Russian analysts say the hijacking has given Moscow another chance to display its might following its brief war with Georgia — which the Kremlin justified, in part, as an effort to protect Russians living in two Georgian breakaway regions.
"It's another show of the flag intended to demonstrate that Russia would protect its citizens wherever it deems it necessary," said Yevgeny Volk, the head of the Moscow office of the Heritage Foundation.
A hostage rescue would play well with the many Russians nostalgic for the superpower status of the Soviet Union.
Pavel Felgenhauer, an independent military analyst, said Russia might be tempted to use force. "Neustrashimy is a well-armed frigate, which can do that," he said.
But there was no word of any Russian forces being sent to the area besides the frigate. The ship is armed with cruise missiles, torpedoes and cannons, and carries a helicopter.
"It's a pure propaganda effort," Volk said, arguing that a single warship would be useless in the current situation and a special-forces mission would be needed.
Ukraine has said little about the hijacking, and it's not clear if it is negotiating to end the crisis. Moscow has not publicly offered help to Ukraine, and Kiev has not publicly asked.
The hijacking comes at a time of strained relations between the two. Moscow is angry about Kiev's bid to join NATO, its threat to evict Russia's Black Sea fleet from its Ukrainian base in Sevastopol, and Ukraine's criticism of Russia's war in Georgia.
Russia's government-owned RIA Novosti news agency Monday quoted an unidentified Russian official as criticizing Ukraine for failing to provide a military escort for the ship.
Most pirate attacks occur in the Gulf of Aden, one of the world's busiest shipping lanes, north of Somalia. But recently pirates have been targeting Indian Ocean waters off eastern Somalia.
Some 62 ships have been attacked in the notorious African waters this year. A total of 26 ships were hijacked, and 12 remain in the hands of the pirates along with more than 200 crew members.
International warships patrol the area and have created a special security corridor under a U.S.-led initiative, but attacks have not abated.
Associated Press writers Elizabeth A. Kennedy in Nairobi, Kenya, Barbara Surk in Dubai, United Arab Emirates, Vladimir Isachenkov in Moscow, and Pauline Jelinek in Washington contributed to this report.
Copyright 2008 The Associated Press. The information contained in the AP news report may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or otherwise distributed without the prior written authority of The Associated Press. Active hyperlinks have been inserted by AOL.
2008-09-27 10:48:35

[Lonestar]

Sink it? Can't they just board it, shoot the pirates, and be on their merry way? Sinking a perfectly good ship sounds a bit heavy-handed to me...

We tried doing that with a captured LNG tanker during my 04-05 deployment...the owners of the ship kept saying "No, we do not want you to board".

[Siege]

We tried doing that with a captured LNG tanker during my 04-05 deployment...the owners of the ship kept saying "No, we do not want you to board".

Interesting... So, what does the Navy do in such a situation? Does the will of the ship-owner override concerns over the safety of the sea lanes? Though even if it does, I could see why the USN might treat this case differently, after all there's tanks and other weaponry aboard.

[Lonestar]

Interesting... So, what does the Navy do in such a situation? Does the will of the ship-owner override concerns over the safety of the sea lanes? Though even if it does, I could see why the USN might treat this case differently, after all there's tanks and other weaponry aboard.

Well, in that case we ended up letting the owners of the vessel pay the ransom. Mind you, us and the French had a total of 5 naval vessels(to include one LHD) sitting off the coast of Somalia, with a persistent GQ on the Small Boys, and plans to land several hundred Marines and cut a swath of destruction through all the pirate camps.

Obviously, I think that if we had landed on the Pirates with both feet in that instance we wouldn't have this situation now.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

The Russians don't need special forces, they'll just enter the harbour at night and start indescriminately shelling the town the moment they're sighted, before ramming alongside the freighter and sending over Naval Infantry in gas masks after smothering it in that stuff they used in the theatre hostage crisis.