Somali Pirates: NATO Rules of Engagement Still Being Worked Out

As noted here, NATO deploys naval ships for work against Somali pirates, but as set out here, its battle plan is still a work in progress:

The commander of a NATO task force on its way to tackle piracy off the coast of Somalia has said he still does not know what the rules are for taking on the high-seas bandits. U.S. Admiral Mark Fitzgerald said while he was aware of where the pirates were operating, there was little he could do militarily to stop them and that guidelines on how to take them on -- including whether to shoot -- were still in the works. "You know, I don't think we've gotten the rules of engagement yet from NATO," Fitzgerald told reporters on Monday during a briefing on U.S. naval operations in Europe and Africa. "That's all still being debated in the North Atlantic Council. All we've been told is to prepare a plan to go down there. So (the rules) are going to have to be debated." Six NATO members have contributed ships, including destroyers and frigates, to a special anti-piracy task force following a request from the United Nations. The NATO group passed through the Suez Canal last week on its way to the Horn of Africa, where piracy has surged this year, with more than 30 ships seized and ransoms estimated at $18-$30 million have been paid to free hostages. There are already naval assets from Britain, the United States and Russia in the region, but the area is so vast -- more than 2.5 million square miles -- that it is almost impossible for the pirates to be stopped unless they are caught red-handed. "From a military standpoint, we certainly are limited by what we can do," said Fitzgerald. "How do you prove a guy's a pirate before he actually attacks a ship? "We have a problem from the military side at sea because we can't be omnipresent in the space, and the pirates operate at an advantage because ... they don't announce they're a pirate until they attack a ship." Security specialists say there is a window of only about 15 minutes for a navy ship to respond to a distress call and get to another ship that's being hijacked. Once pirates are on board, there's little, legally, that can be done. "You've got a very short window, a short time span, from the point where they decide to board a ship and (actually) board it. If you're not right there, there's not much you can do, and once the ship is taken hostage, then...." The Danish navy learnt to its cost last month what can happen if you do seize suspected pirates. They captured 10 people, but after holding them for six days aboard a Danish ship, the suspects were set free and put ashore in Somalia because the legal conditions surrounding their detention were unclear. Denmark's Defence Ministry said Danish law did not allow for prosecution of the men before a Danish court. The ministry said it had explored the possibility of handing them over to other countries but that was also not feasible. A senior British naval commander admitted last week that it was essentially a legal minefield trying to take on the pirates, and urged commercial ships operating in the region to hire their own private security companies to deal with the threat. Admiral Fitzgerald said the Danish experience showed how weak the impetus was going to be to capture pirates. Instead he said his task force would focus on escorting World Food Programme ships trying to deliver aid to Somalia.

NATO in the Indian Ocean

Interesting take on the NATO deployment to the shores of Somalia here from the Asia Times:

NATO's Supreme Allied Commander Europe, General John Craddock, acknowledged that the mission furthers the alliance's ambition to become a global political organization. He said, "The threat of piracy is real and growing in many parts of the world today, and this response is a good illustration of NATO's ability to adapt quickly to new security challenges." *** By any reckoning, NATO's naval deployment in the Indian Ocean region is a historic move and a milestone in the alliance's transformation. Even at the height of the Cold War, the alliance didn't have a presence in the Indian Ocean. Such deployments almost always tend to be open-ended. *** The NATO deployment has already had some curious fallout. In an interesting coincidence, on October 16, just as the NATO force was reaching the Persian Gulf, an Indian Defense Ministry spokesman announced in New Delhi, "The [Indian] government today approved deployment of an Indian naval warship in the Gulf of Aden to patrol the normal route followed by Indian-flagged ships during passage between Salalah in Oman and Aden in Yemen. "The patrolling is commencing immediately." The timing seems deliberate. Media reports indicated that the government had been working on this decision for several months. Like NATO, Delhi also acted fast when the time came, and an Indian ship has already set sail. Delhi initially briefed the media that the deployment came in the wake of an incident of Somali pirates hijacking a Japanese-owned merchant vessel on August 15, which had 18 Indians on board. But later, it backtracked and gave a broader connotation, saying, "However, the current decision to patrol African waters is not directly related [to the incident in August]." The Indian statement said, "The presence of an Indian navy warship in this area will be significant as the Gulf of Aden is a major strategic choke point in the Indian Ocean region and provides access to the Suez Canal through which a sizeable portion of India's trade flows." Indian officials said the warship would work in cooperation with the Western navies deployed in the region and would be supplemented with a larger force if need and that it would be well equipped. But Delhi obfuscated the fact that the Western deployment will be under the NATO flag and any cooperation with the Western navies will involve the Western alliance. Given the traditional Indian policy to steer clear of military blocs, Delhi is understandably sensitive. *** The operations hold the potential to shift India's ties with NATO to a qualitatively new level. The US has been encouraging India to forge ties with NATO as well as play a bigger role in maritime security affairs. The two countries have a bilateral protocol relating to cooperation in maritime security, which was signed in 2006. It says at the outset, "Consistent with their global strategic partnership and the new framework for their defense relationship, India and the United States committed themselves to comprehensive cooperation in ensuring a secure maritime domain. In doing so, they pledged to work together, and with other regional partners as necessary." The Indian Navy command has been raring to go in the direction of close partnership with the US Navy in undertaking security responsibilities far beyond its territorial waters. The two navies have instituted an annual large-scale annual exercise in the Indian Ocean - the Malabar exercises. This year's exercises are currently under way along India's western coast.

Who knew that the failed state of Somalia could possibly bring people together?

Suez Canal Business Threatened By Somali Pirates?

The Middle East Times seems to think so Somali Piracy Shakes Confidence in Suez Canal Route:

The rise in piracy off the coasts of Somalia has shaken confidence in the Suez Canal as a safe passage linking the Red Sea and the Mediterranean Sea and has prompted shipping companies to seek out alternative routes that avoid the dangerous East African Horn waters.

The Egyptian government privately fears a downturn in revenues from the canal, which along with tourism, oil and gas receipts, is a hefty foreign currency spinner.

Analysts at the London-based Chatham House foreign policy think tank have warned that if strong measures are not immediately taken, safe shipping through the Suez Canal could effectively be cut off. They called for further maritime reinforcements to be deployed in the seas around the Horn of Africa in order to preempt piracy, which has risen to record levels.

Egypt earns up to $500 million a month from ships passing through the water corridor that links the Indian Ocean with European markets via the Red Sea and Mediterranean.

What the future holds?

The Wurzelbacher Effect:

I asked a question. When you can't ask a question to your leaders anymore, that gets scary. That bothers me."

Freedom of speech requires protection every single day.

Monday Reading

Fred Fry put up Maritime Monday 132 and takes look at Livestock Express and so much more that it will take a week to read it all....

Salamander gets a warning order.

Steeljaw Scribe notes the birth date of one of the Hornets.

Sunday Ship History: Churchill's Dummy Fleet

Halloween nears and the stores are full of costumes designed to turn little angels into devils and vice-versa.

Such costuming is not unknown in navy circles - many warships have disguised themselves as merchants to lure prospective pirates or enemies into engagements (see here for one such example).

In the movie Master and Commander and the book The Far Side of the World, Captain Aubrey turns his vessel into a fake whaling ship to lure an American ship into a fight.

Q-ships were merchant ships with concealed weapons (see here).

A real oddity in modern times, however, is a merchant ship disguising itself as a warship... or, as is set out below, a country disguising a whole bunch of unarmed merchant hulls into fake battleships, cruisers and the like.

Which is exactly what Great Britain did in World War I - and, you might guess, the active mind of Winston Churchill was behind the plan:

Three years before the outbreak of the Great War, Winston Churchill dreamed of a dummy fleet for the royal navy to deter the German High Seas Fleet and lure its submarines into traps. But not until two months into the war, when Churchill was first lord of the admiralty, was he able to get his plan under way. In October 1914, he wrote the following:

It is necessary to construct without delay a dummy fleet. Ten merchant vessels...should be selected at once. They should be distributed among various private yards not specially burdened with warship building at the present time. They are then to be turned mocked up to represent fast battleships of the First and Second Battle Squadrons. The actual size need not correspond exactly, as it is notoriously difficult to judge the size of vessels at sea, and frequently even destroyers are mistaken for cruisers.

We are bearing in mind particularly aerial and periscope observation where deception is much more easy. . . Very little metal would be required, and practically the whole work should be executed in wood or canvas.

He explain, "Even when the enemy knows that we have such a fleet its presence will tend to mystify and confuse his plans, and baffle and distract the enterprise of his submarines. He will always be in doubt as to which is is the real and which is the dummy fleet." . . .

Ten old passenger and cargo ships were quickly selected and reconstruction was begun that same month. Although size was not a critical factor, it was important that each ship's silhouette resemble the warship it was to simulate. Accordingly, they were fitted out with broader decks, and were given greater length, warship like bows and sterns, fire-control towers, turrets and guns, and the appropriate number of smokestacks, ones that belched real smoke from small concealed smoke generators. Because merchantmen without cargo ride higher in the water than warships, each was ballasted down with 9000 tons of stone.
***
At first the phantom fleet anchored at the main naval base at Scapa Flow, placed in the outer roads to draw the first torpedoes of any U-boats that might penetrate the well-defended base. Later they steamed out into the North Sea to lure U-boats to risk attack in the face of the very real escort warships.

Beginning in March 1915, ships of the phantom fleet were sent to the Mediterranean to support the big Allied naval effort to force their way through the Dardanelles and knock Turkey our of the war. Their role was again to act as decoys for submarines but also to draw fire from the Turkish shore batteries.

One of these vessels . . . was the former S.S. Merion, a 12,000-ton liner converted to a dummy of the 30,000-ton Tiger, the Royal Navy's newest and largest battle cruiser. During the evening of 30 May 1915, pseudo-Tiger was sighted and torpedoed . . . by a German U-boat. The ship's captain . . . and all but 4 of his crew of 117 managed to abandon ship successfully as the vessel, ballasted with rock, sank slowly on an even keel. The U-boat commander might have been puzzled initially by his victim's failure to heel over or plunge bow or stern first as ships normally did when torpedoed; but it must have dawned on him that he had been hoaxed when, as pseudo-Tiger slipped under, it shed its turrets, supposedly weighing 100 tons and left them floating off into the Aegean twilight, guns pointing to the sky.

Naturally, such a project was difficult to keep secret - and the New York Times published the first rumor in an article that appeared in December 1914, with fairly specific detail:

A tale of a British naval trick in process of preparation, the purpose of which was not quite clear, was brought to New York yesterday by a passenger on the White Star liner Baltic from Liverpool.

The passenger told of the fitting out of fifty dummy warships. . .These vessels are old steamships of various tonnage and speed...

The purpose for which they are intended is being kept secret . . .

In an interview with a Times reporter at his hotel the passenger . . . said that the work was being carried on day and night...
"After the interior fittings of the ships have been ripped out," the passenger said, "the hulls are strengthened withe extra steel beams and the holds filled with cement or some product of similar nature to sink them level with the water. Then the upper works are painted a naval gray and wooden turrets and wooded guns are mounted on their decks. Through a friend in the shipyard I looked over one old passenger liner that was being fitted with nine-inch guns and looked quite formidable. While I was there a painter who was working on a dummy funnel fell out of the bo'suns chair he was sitting in, went through the turret and smashed the gun inside.

"Of course, all these things are very lightly constructed and have to be handled carefully. An able seaman, who was carrying a 'ten-ton' anchor on his shoulder along the deck. was admonished by the bo'sun to go easy or he would break the mudhook in two amidships..."

Not much a secret. However, perhaps the Germans didn't read that issue of the Times.

Later, in January 1918, the Times headlined the story of this fake fleet as the

"WAR'S BIGGEST TRICK: "THE SUICIDE FLEET"; British Squadron of Fourteen Wooden Ships; with Wooden Guns, Deceived Germans for Months...."

See here for the pdf version of this concluding story:

The wooden ships without a single real weapon aboard - British Navy men called them "mock turtles" - helped Britannia rule the waves during the first year of the war, and the Germans never once suspected that they were aught but what they seemed. The foe did not catch on to the joke even when one of their submarines sank a dummy at the Dardanelles where it was serving as a mail ship for the allied fleets. They announced and rejoiced that "a British battleship of the ______ class was sunk by one of our submarines," although the huge guns and turrets of the dreadnought floated for days about the entrance to Stamboul!

A naval example of "trick or treat."

The photo above is of the real HMS Tiger, I think...

Somali Pirates: Thai ship released, pirates richer

Reported as Somali pirates get ransom, release Thai cargo ship:

It's been a busy, profitable week for Somali pirates: They hijacked one South Korean bulk carrier Wednesday, released another South Korean cargo ship Thursday and let a hijacked Thai ship go Saturday after getting a ransom.

Somali minister Ali Abdi Aware reported the release of the Thai ship after the ransom, but said Sunday it was not clear exactly how much money was paid.

Aware, the minister for foreign affairs for the semiautonomous northern Somali region of Puntland, said Puntland forces will be hunting for the pirates. Earlier this week, Puntland forces freed a Panama-flagged cargo ship from pirates in a gunbattle that killed one soldier.

Somalia: Private pirate fighters? Blackwater says it's ready

Reported as Blackwater offering to protect ships from pirates near Somalia:

"We have the capability to assist" shipping companies, said Bill Mathews, Blackwater executive vice president. He and other company leaders are former Navy SEALs. Ship security "is kind of what we did for a living" before joining Blackwater, he said.

Blackwater is offering the MV MacArthur, a 183-foot vessel with a crew of 14 and a helicopter pad, as an escort for ships through the Gulf of Aden. The helicopters and MacArthur won't be armed, although workers will carry guns, Mathews said.

The company will need a State Department license to sell its services to a foreign government or business, said Anne Tyrrell, a Blackwater spokeswoman.

Blackwater offers up a press release announcement (pdf) here.

Nigeria: Pirates capture 8 trawlers

Nigeria has piracy issues,too, as seen here:

The menace of sea piracy mostly perpetrated by Somali pirates across the globe may have taken a devastating toll on Nigeria as eight fishing vessels with 96 crew members were taken hostage yesterday. President of Nigerian Trawler Owners Association (NITOA), Mrs. Margaret Orakwusi, who told THISDAY about the attack last night, said it took place in the early hours of yesterday. Orakwusi said the vessels were trawling at Sambrayo area of Bayelsa State when armed men suspected to be sea pirates attacked them, taking the vessels along with the crew members to an unknown destination. As at the time of filing this report, the whereabouts of the vessels and crew members were still unknown. Orakwusi said the fishing vessels belonged to NITOA members. According to her, one of the crew members on board one of the vessels, who notified the Navy about the incident, said the vessels were navigated to the deeper sea by the pirates.

Somalia: Indian Navy to guard Indian ships against pirates

The Indian navy is joining the anti-pirate parade of warships in the Gulf of Aden, as set out here:

In the wake of several pirate attacks on merchant vessels being reported along the African coast recently, India on Thursday decided to send its warships "immediately" to the Gulf of Aden for patrolling and to escort container vessels flying the Indian Tricolour.

"The government today approved deployment of Indian Naval warship in Gulf Aden to patrol the normal route followed by Indian flagships during passage between Salalah in Oman and Aden in Yemen," a Defence Ministry spokesperson announced in New Delhi.

"The patrolling is commencing immediately," he said, but in the same vein claimed the ship was yet to sail from the Indian shores to Gulf of Aden along the Horn of Africa.

Initially, India would deploy only one of its warships in the region but it could be increased later on a need basis, the spokesperson said.

The government's decision comes close on the heels of Somalian pirates hijacking a Japanese-owned merchant vessel MV Stolt Valor with 18 Indians among the 22 sailors on board on August 15 this year.

It's going to get crowded with warships. Who'd have thought?

Somali Pirates Free Ship

Reported here:

PIRATES have released the 16,248 dwt general cargo vessel Thor Star and the ship’s 28 crew 64 days after the Thoresen Thai-owned vessel was hijacked 160km off the coast of Yemen in early August.

A Thoresen Thai Agencies spokesman said the 1985-built vessel was released by its captors in Somalia early Tuesday morning. No details were given about whether any ransom had been paid to release the vessel and crew.

The Thai-flagged ship is heading towards an un-named port in the Middle East where the crew, which are reported to be in good spirits, will be debriefed and undergo medical checks and offered psychological counselling before being flown home.

Somalia: Pirates get another ship

While the merchant fleets are waiting for EU and NATO escorts, the Somali pirates are staying busy, as set out in Pirates seize ship:

A maritime official says armed pirates have hijacked a bulk carrier with 21 crew members in the Gulf of Aden near Somalia.

Noel Choong of the International Maritime Bureau says the ship was sailing from the Middle East to Asia when it was seized Wednesday. The ship flies a Panamanian flag but is operated in the Philippines.

Somali Pirates: NATO force enroute - in Suez

The EU says its naval force for pirate fighting will be ready in December, but NATO has a force currently enroute:

A flotilla of seven NATO ships was steaming toward the Gulf of Aden following last week’s decision by defense ministers to provide protection against pirates who have seized almost 30 ships this year. Alliance spokesman James Appathurai said NATO ships will escort U.N. boats carrying food aid to Somalia and run patrols to deter pirate attacks on other vessels, the AP reported. The NATO naval group consists of destroyers from Italy and the United States, frigates from Germany, Greece, Turkey and Britain and a German auxiliary vessel. The vessels will help escort U.N. World Food Program (WFP) food shipments, until the European Union can set its own operation afoot, probably in December. The WFP ships 30,000-35,000 tones of aid into Somalia each month. Its vessels are currently under Canadian escort, but that service is due to come to an end on October 20.

Good for NATO! Bad for the pirates.

Somali Pirates Lose a Ship to Somali Locals

Internal action against some Somali pirates results in the ship being freed:

Security forces of the northeastern Somali region on Tuesday freed an abducted ship carrying commercial goods for Somali businesspeople after a gun battle with pirates off the coast of Somalia, local official said.

"After long gun fight, our forces were able to overpower the pirates and take over the ship which is now heading for the port of Bossaso," Farah Ali, regional deputy minister for national security, told Xinhua.

Ali said that there were casualties on both sides but declined to give figures.

The ship, laden with commercial goods for local businesspeople, was abducted this week off Somali coast as it tried to dock at the port of Bossaso where piracy and hostage taking has been rampant.
***
This is the second time the local security forces were able to free an abducted ship from pirates who are often better trained and well equipped than the local forces.

Monday (and beyond) Reading

Fred Fry's Maritime Monday 131 @gCaptain.com,with enough maritime links to make salt water flow in your veins. And photos of J.Poulsen Shipping ships which carry an astonishing collection of things.


Towmasters on Death on the River Clyde reminds of the unforgiving nature of sea related activities.

The Skeptical Bureaucrat has a thing on Terrorism Alert Fatigue.

Armies of Liberation posts Open Letter to President Saleh on the 8th Anniversary of the USS Cole Attack, Saleh being the president of Yemen, where the attack occurred, and the author of the letter being a parent of one of the sailors murdered by the terrorist bomb.

Betsy Newmark bids farewell to a hero.

Spook86 has a look at some more heroes.

The Unofficial Coast Guard Blog has an ice breaker Naming contest. You know, in case, we ever get around to providing real jobs for Americans by building such things...

And Coast Guard News has a thrill for you private pilots and/or air observesrs - a video invitation to join the Coast Guard Auxiliary Aviators, who are out there volunteering to serve their country.

Custodian, over at Information Dissemination discusses (in a Part I) everyone's favorite topic, Naval Surface Fire Support (that's Naval guns at work for the lay persons).

Molten Eagle has an illuminating post involving blimps, submarines and searchlights.

Somali Pirates: Asian shipowners want piracy fought

Reported as Asian Shipowners Call for Strong Will to Combat Piracy:

The Asian Shipowners Forum (ASF), a grouping of shipowner associations in the region, says ships crossing the Gulf of Aden continue to be attacked despite the Coalition members' best efforts, due to inadequate resources and lack of proper rules of engagement among the members of the Coalition forces.

"The ASF urgently appeals to the United Nations, the International Maritime Organisation (IMO) and all maritime nations to exercise strong political will to combat this problem.

"Where possible, governments are strongly urged to reinforce and strengthen the Coalition naval and air forces based in the Middle East," ASF said in a statement released last Tuesday.

It also urged governments to commit to increased number of deployed warships in the Gulf of Aden.

ASF groups seven shipowner associations from Australia, China, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Japan, South Korea and the Federation of Asean Shipowners' Associations, comprising shipping associations in Asean.

So far the number of warships deployed to fight pirates in the Gulf of Aden from Australia, China, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Japan, and South Korea is .... none.

Australia does have one ship deployed to the Arabian Gulf.

Somalia: Internal clashes with pirates

From out of the Puntland "province" news:

Fighting erupted Sunday between a group of pirates holding Somali ship and soldiers loyal to Somalia's semiautonomous state of Puntland between the Red Sea and the Indian Ocean, according to eyewitnesses.
***
According to reports from Puntland, Saturday's clashes erupted after a soldiers led by a senior Puntland police commanders attacked pirates but they failed to seize the ship from the pirates.
***
In recent weeks, some Puntland soldiers have arrived in Eyl to join forces with pirates, who have collected millions of dollars in ransom payments.

Puntland President Adde Muse recently told soldiers that the government cannot pay their salaries, a development insiders say has helped fuel the number of soldiers joining piracy.

Sunday Ship History: U.S. Navy's Birthday

Birth of the U.S. Navy On Friday, October 13, 1775, meeting in Philadelphia, the Continental Congress voted to fit out two sailing vessels, armed with ten carriage guns, as well as swivel guns, and manned by crews of eighty, and to send them out on a cruise of three months to intercept transports carrying munitions and stores to the British army in America. This was the original legislation out of which the Continental Navy grew and as such constitutes the birth certificate of the navy.

To understand the momentous significance of the decision to send two armed vessels to sea under the authority of the Continental Congress, we need to review the strategic situation in which it was made and to consider the political struggle that lay behind it.
Americans first took up arms in the spring of 1775 not to sever their relationship with the king, but to defend their rights within the British Empire. By the autumn of 1775, the British North American colonies from Maine to Georgia were in open rebellion. Royal governments had been thrust out of many colonial capitals and revolutionary governments put in their places. The Continental Congress had assumed some of the responsibilities of a central government for the colonies, created a Continental Army, issued paper money for the support of the troops, and formed a committee to negotiate with foreign countries. Continental forces captured Fort Ticonderoga on Lake Champlain and launched an invasion of Canada.

In October 1775 the British held superiority at sea, from which they threatened to stop up the colonies' trade and to wreak destruction on seaside settlements. In response a few of the states had commissioned small fleets of their own for defense of local waters. Congress had not yet authorized privateering. Some in Congress worried about pushing the armed struggle too far, hoping that reconciliation with the mother country was still possible.


Yet, a small coterie of men in Congress had been advocating a Continental Navy from the outset of armed hostilities. Foremost among these men was John Adams, of Massachusetts. For months, he and a few others had been agitating in Congress for the establishment of an American fleet. They argued that a fleet would defend the seacoast towns, protect vital trade, retaliate against British raiders, and make it possible to seek out among neutral nations of the world the arms and stores that would make resistance possible.

Still, the establishment of a navy seemed too bold a move for some of the timid men in Congress. Some southerners agreed that a fleet would protect and secure the trade of New England but denied that it would that of the southern colonies. Most of the delegates did not consider the break with England as final and feared that a navy implied sovereignty and independence. Others thought a navy a hasty and foolish challenge to the mightiest fleet the world had seen. The most the pro-navy men could do was to get Congress to urge each colony to fit out armed vessels for the protection of their coasts and harbors.

Then, on 3 October, Rhode Island's delegates laid before Congress a bold resolution for the building and equipping of an American fleet, as soon as possible. When the motion came to the floor for debate, Samuel Chase, of Maryland, attacked it, saying it was "the maddest Idea in the World to think of building an American Fleet." Even pro-navy members found the proposal too vague. It lacked specifics and no one could tell how much it would cost.

If Congress was yet unwilling to embrace the idea of establishing a navy as a permanent measure, it could be tempted by short-term opportunities. Fortuitously, on 5 October, Congress received intelligence of two English brigs, unarmed and without convoy, laden with munitions, leaving England bound for Quebec. Congress immediately appointed a committee to consider how to take advantage of this opportunity. Its members were all New Englanders and all ardent supporters of a navy. They recommended first that the governments of Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Connecticut be asked to dispatch armed vessels to lay in wait to intercept the munitions ships; next they outlined a plan for the equipping by Congress of two armed vessels to cruise to the eastward to intercept any ships bearing supplies to the British army. Congress let this plan lie on the table until 13 October, when another fortuitous event occurred in favor of the naval movement. A letter from General Washington was read in Congress in which he reported that he had taken under his command, at Continental expense, three schooners to cruise off Massachusetts to intercept enemy supply ships. The commander in chief had preempted members of Congress reluctant to take the first step of fitting out warships under Continental authority. Since they already had armed vessels cruising in their name, it was not such a big step to approve two more. The committee's proposal, now appearing eminently reasonable to the reluctant members, was adopted.

The Continental Navy grew into an important force. Within a few days, Congress established a Naval Committee charged with equipping a fleet. This committee directed the purchasing, outfitting, manning, and operations of the first ships of the new navy, drafted subsequent naval legislation, and prepared rules and regulations to govern the Continental Navy's conduct and internal administration.

Over the course of the War of Independence, the Continental Navy sent to sea more than fifty armed vessels of various types. The navy's squadrons and cruisers seized enemy supplies and carried correspondence and diplomats to Europe, returning with needed munitions. They took nearly 200 British vessels as prizes, some off the British Isles themselves, contributing to the demoralization of the enemy and forcing the British to divert warships to protect convoys and trade routes. In addition, the navy provoked diplomatic crises that helped bring France into the war against Great Britain. The Continental Navy began the proud tradition carried on today by our United States Navy, and whose birthday we celebrate each year in October.

Some aspects of the enormous decision:

Many Americans considered a navy a wasteful luxury that the young republic did not need and could not afford. After all, Europe was three thousand miles away--a fact that gave Americans a false sense of security. To many others, a navy represented the type of imperialism they had just fought to overthrow. A permanent naval force also seemed to represent the very qualities of British aristocracy that Americans found so distasteful.
Yet America's future rested on the seas. Even when the colonies were part of the British Empire, Americans were tied to the maritime world in one way or another. Whether one was a shipowner or a small merchant, a resident of New England or the agrarian South, American trade and commerce increasingly rested on the seas.

While most Americans in the late eighteenth century were still subsistence farmers, more and more of them were becoming tied to commerce and therefore to the maritime trade. In order to protect that trade, as well as enforce American diplomatic demands, the young nation discovered that it needed a navy that was more than merely a coastal defense force. Between 1794 and the conclusion of the War of 1812, the U.S. Navy would not only become a permanent entity, but also create heroes and traditions that would bring all Americans a sense of security and pride.

How were the ships to be named:

Ship names in the Continental Navy and the early Federal navy came from a variety of sources. As if to emphasize the ties that many Americans still felt to Britain, the first ship of the new Continental Navy was named Alfred in honor of Alfred the Great, the king of Wessex who is credited with building the first English naval force. Another ship was named Raleigh to commemorate the seagoing exploits of Sir Walter Raleigh. Some ships honored early patriots and heroes (Hancock and General Greene). Others commemorated the young nation's ideals and institutions (Constitution, Independence, Congress). A 74-gun ship-of-the-line, launched in 1782 and donated to the French Navy on completion, was named America. A Revolutionary War frigate named Bourbon saluted the King of France, whose alliance would further the cause of American independence. Other ship names honored American places (Boston, Virginia). Small warships-- brigs and schooners--bore a variety of names. Some were named for positive character traits (Enterprise, Diligent). Others had classical names (Syren, Argus) or names of small creatures with a potent sting (Hornet, Wasp).

So, the Navy's first ship was named after an English king but managed to run up a pretty good record:

Alfred-a ship-rigged vessel originally named Black Prince-was built at Philadelphia in 1774. No record of her builder seems to have survived, but it is possible that John Wharton may have constructed the ship.

John Barry served as the ship's only master during her career as a Philadelphia merchantman. Launched in the autumn of 1774 as relations between the American colonies and the mother country grew increasingly tense, Black Prince was fitted out quickly so that she could load and sail for Bristol on the last day of 1774. The ship did not return to Philadelphia until 25 April 1775, six days after the battles of Lexington and Concord.

Fearing that American commerce would soon be interrupted, her owners were eager to export another cargo to England, so they again raced to load and provision her. Black Prince sailed on 7 May, this time bound for London. She did not reach that destination until 27 June. The ship left the Thames on 10 August but encountered contrary winds during much of her westward voyage and finally returned to Philadelphia on 4 October.

While the ship had been abroad, much had happened to deepen the American conflict with England. The Battle of Bunker Hill had been fought, the other colonies acting in Congress had pledged to support Massachusetts in its struggle for freedom, and George Washington had taken command of the American Army besieging British-occupied Boston. Moreover, private correspondence which Black Prince had brought from England to members of the Continental Congress reported that the British Government was sending to America two unarmed brigs heavily laden with gunpowder and arms.

This inteligence prompted Congress on 13 October to authorize the fitting out of two American warships, of 10 guns each, to attempt to capture these ships and divert their invaluable cargoes to the ill-equipped soldiers of Washington's army. Congress decided, on 30 October, to add two more ships to the navy, one of 20 guns and the other slightly larger but not to exceed 36 guns. Alfred undoubtedly was the latter ship.

As a result, the Naval Committee purchased Black Prince on 4 November 1775, renamed her Alfred four days later, and ordered her fitted out as a man-of-war. Her former master, John Barry, was placed in charge of her rerigging; Joshua Humphreys was selected to superintend changes strengthening her hull, timbers, and bulwarks as well as opening gunports; and Nathaniel Falconer was made responsible for her ordnance and provisions.

Soon four other vessels joined Alfred in the Continental Navy: Columbus, Cabot, Andrew Doria, and sloop Providence. Esek Hopkins, a veteran master of merchantmen from Rhode Island, was appointed commodore of the flotilla. Alfred was placed in commission on 3 December 1775, Capt. Dudley Saltonstall in command, and became Hopkins' flagship.

The new fleet dropped down the Delaware River on 4 January 1776; but a cold snap froze the river and the bay, checking its progress at Reedy Island for some six weeks. A thaw released Hopkins' warships from winter's icy rasp in mid-February, and the fleet sortied on 18 February for its first operation. The Marine Committee had ordered Hopkins to sail for Hampton Roads to attack British warships which were harassing American shipping in Virginia waters; then to render similar service at Charleston, S.C.; and, finally, to head for Rhode Island waters. He was given the discretion of disregarding these orders if they proved impossible and planning an operation of his own.

However, by the time his ships broke free of the ice, growing British strength in the Chesapeake prompted Hopkins to head for the West Indies. Knowing that the American colonies desperately needed gunpowder, he decided to attack the island of New Providence in the Bahamas to capture a large supply of that commodity as well as a great quantity of other military supplies reportedly stored there. A fortnight after leaving the Delaware capes, on the morning of 3 March Hopkins arrived off Nassau and captured Fort Montague in a bloodless battle in which Continental marines under Capt. Samuel Nicholas joined Hopkins' sailors in America's first amphibious operation.

That evening, Hopkins issued a proclamation which promised not to harm ". . . the persons or property of the inhabitants of New Providence . . ." if they did not resist. The following morning, Governor Montfort Browne surrendered Fort Nassau but only after he had spirited away most of the island's gunpowder from New Providence to St. Augustine, Fla.

After Hopkins stripped the forts of their guns and all remaining ordnance, Alfred led the American fleet homeward from Nassau harbor on St. Patrick's Day, 17 March, the same day that British troops were evacuating Boston. On 4 April, during the homeward voyage, Hopkins' ships captured the six-gun British schooner Hawk and the eight-gun bomb brig Bolton. Shortly after midnight on 6 April, Hopkins encountered the 20-gun HMS Glasgow. That British frigate--which was carrying dispatches telling of the British withdrawal--put up a fierce and skillful fight which enabled her to escape from her substantially more powerful American opponents. At the outset of the fray, fire from her cannon cut Alfred's tiller ropes, leaving Hopkins' flagship unable to maneuver or to pursue effectively. The American ships did attempt to chase their fleeing enemy, but after dawn Glasgow disappeared over the horizon and safely reached Newport, R.I.

When Alfred and her consorts put into New London, Conn., on 8 April, the Americans were at first welcomed as heroes. However, many of the officers of the American squadron voiced dissatisfaction with Hopkins, and he was later relieved of command.

Alfred was inactive through the summer for a number of reasons, but high on the list of her problems were want of funds and a shortage of men. On 7 August, Capt. John Paul Jones, who had helped to fit her out as a warship and had been her first lieutenant on the cruise to New Providence, was placed in command of the ship. She departed Providence, R. I., on 26 October 1776 in company with Hampden, but that vessel struck a "sunken rock" before they could leave Narragansett Bay and returned to Newport. Her officers and men then shifted to sloop Providence accompanying Alfred to waters off Cape Breton Island which they reached by mid-November. There they took three prizes: on the 11th, the brigantine Active, bound from Liverpool to Halifax with an assorted cargo, the next day, the armed transport Mellish, laden with winter uniforms for British troops at Quebec; and, on the 16th, the scow Kitty, bound from Gaspe to Barbados with oil and fish.

Because of severe leaks, Providence sailed for home soon thereafter and Alfred continued her cruise alone. On 22 November boats from the ship raided Canso, Nova Scotia, where their crews burned a transport bound for Canada with provisions and a warehouse full of whale oil, besides capturing a small schooner to replace Providence. Two days later, Alfred captured three colliers off Louisburg, bound from Nova Scotia to New York with coal for the British Army and, on 26 November captured the 10-gun letter-of-marque John of Liverpool. On the homeward voyage, Alfred was pursued by HMS Milford but managed to escape after a four-hour chase. She arrived safely at Boston on 15 December and began a major refit.

Captain Elisha Hinman became Alfred's commanding officer in May 1777, but she did not get underway until 22 August when she sailed for France with Raleigh to obtain military supplies. En route, they captured four small prizes. They reached L'Orient on 6 October, and on 29 December sailed for America. They proceeded via the coast of Africa, where they took a small sloop, and then headed for the West Indies, hoping to add to their score before turning northward for home.

On 9 March 1778, near Barbados, they encountered British warships Ariadne and Ceres. When the American ships attempted to flee, Alfred fell behind her faster consort. Shortly after noon the British men-of-war caught up with Alfred and forced her to surrender after a half an hour's battle.

After surrendering, Alfred was taken to Barbados where she was condemned and sold. She was purchased and taken into the Royal Navy as H.M. armed ship Alfred (20 guns) and was sold in 1782.

A upstart Navy -born 233 years ago. Thanks to all who have ever worn Navy blue.

Remember the Attack On The USS Cole (DDG-67)

Eight years ago today, the attack On The USS Cole (DDG-67) cost 17 American sailors their lives.

Remember them.

Arming Merchants?

For all of you who have suggested that some sort of armed security force ought to be embarked on merchant ships transiting the Gulf of Aden, at least one military voice agrees, as set out here:

The senior British Royal Navy commander in the Gulf has called for merchant shipping to hire mercenaries in response to the increasing danger of piracy.

At a time when a record number of ships have been hijacked off Somalia, Commodore Keith Winstanley said he believed that the situation has become so serious that civilian vessels should be armed.

He told The Daily Telegraph that private security companies working in Iraq or Afghanistan could be better used guarding ships, which in pirate-infested regions needed a "visual deterrent" such as mounted heavy machine guns.

If his suggestion were adopted, it would be the first time that merchant seamen have been significantly armed since World War II.

So many legal issues involved....

See Noah Shachtman's post here on mercenaries.

Why are we talking about fending off the pirates instead of taking them out? As noted before:

Some of you may be wondering why the "concerned nations" just don't invade Somalia and take out the pirates. At this stage, my analysis is:

1. Who wants the hassle? It's cheaper to pay ransoms and offer up some ships for patrol than to undertake the invasion.
2. If you did invade, would you end up "owning" the Somalia problem?
3. Everyone has seen or read Blackhawk Down.
4. Quick - name the number of countries that could mount an invasion in force, support troops in the field and sustain the force for an extended period... That country is a little busy right now...

See also "Containment Strategy":

But complete defeat of pirates may not be the goal. It may make sense to work to minimize the harm they can cause and work on "containing" the pirate problem.

"Containment" in this context means keeping Somali pirate interference with important sea lines of communication to an acceptable level - one in which the cost is not too high in dollars or blood. This makes economic sense, reduces the risk of death to innocent parties and justifies naval piracy patrol operations.

Containment is the alternative to taking over Somalia.