Straits of Singapore Pirates: Tug Attacks

Reported here:

Masked parang-wielding pirates robbed a Singapore-registered tug boat towing a granite-ladened barge in the Straits of Singapore Sunday morning.

'Weihai 5' was towing 'Jovan 1', the barge loaded with granite from Lumut, Perak enroute here, when five pirates boarded it northeast of Helen Mar Reef in the east bound lane of the Singapore Straits from their speed boat at 2.25am.

Four of them wearing masks and armed with parangs, snatched mobile phones, money and other valuables from the six Indonesian crew on board the tug boat, according to the Regional Cooperation Agreement on Combating Piracy and Armed Robbery against Ships in Asia Information Sharing Centre (ReCAAP ISC) here today.

And another attack report from ReCAAP:

On 12 July 2009 at about 0200 hrs (local time), a Singapore-registered tug boat, Kenryo towing barge Al Jabber 35 carrying a load of oil rig equipment was at position 01° 09.90' N, 103° 46.0' E (east of Raffles Lighthouse, Singapore Strait) when five robbers boarded the tug boat from a speed boat. The incident occurred when the tug boat was underway to Singapore from Batu Ampar, Indonesia. Four of the robbers worn masks and armed with parangs. The robbers took away mobile phones, money and other valuables from the crew of Kenryo. They also damaged the communication equipment onboard Kenryo before fleeing in the speed boat. The 12 crew who are Indonesians were not harmed.

There's Nothing Like Experience: A Short Report on Unintended Consequences

From the U.S. Coast Guard Home Page a link to an AP report on why some things maybe can't be rushed: Tugboat pilot plan may have backfired:

A federal program to recruit more tugboat pilots may have backfired by allowing thousands of novice captains to take the helm and contributing to a 25 percent increase in the number of accidents on the nation's rivers.

An Associated Press review of Coast Guard records indicates that the U.S. tugboat fleet is increasingly piloted by captains who have spent as little as one year in the wheelhouse.

"The system has failed," said David Whitehurst, a tug captain and member of the board of directors for the National Mariners Association, a national tug workers' group based in Houma, La.

"We have the highest horsepower in history, pushing more tonnage than ever in history, with the least knowledgeable personnel in history. It is a disaster. Look at the accidents we've had in the past few years."

Said Richard Block, secretary of the mariners' group: "You can't learn to run a towing vessel overnight, and some of these companies are simply rushing it too much."

Pushing or pulling barges piled high with freight, today's river tugboats are the 18-wheelers of the waterways, transporting all manner of goods such as oil, grain and chemicals.

At the start of the decade, the Coast Guard was under pressure from the shipping industry to revamp its training and licensing process for river pilots because an older generation of captains in their 50s was beginning to retire, creating a labor shortage.

The agency scrapped the time-honored "master's system" in which captains hand-selected rookies for pilot training. Instead, officials began allowing companies to pick trainees and pay for them to become "apprentice steersmen."

Under the new system, someone can get behind the controls of a tug after just a year, whereas the old arrangement required new pilots to spend years working their way up to the captain's seat.

In 2003, just 16 pilots were issued new apprentice towing licenses. By 2007, that number ballooned to 871, and last year to 885. The new pilots come cheap, too. An apprentice earns about $175 a day compared with $450 a day for a top-grade pilot.

But as the industry has added thousands of new pilots, the number of accidents involving tugs, barges and related vessels has jumped 25 percent, from 1,399 in 2003 to 1,754 in 2008.

And it's not because more goods are getting shipped. Over that same span, cargo volumes rose by only about 3 percent.

As the saying goes, "Do you now or do you want it right?"

Somali Pirates: Pirates Hijack Indian Dhow and Turn It into "Mothership"

It began Friday with the Somali pirate capture of a Indian dhow off the coast of Somalia in what might have been a business deal gone wrong,as reported here:

An Indian dhow, with 16 Indians on board, was reportedly hijacked by Somali pirates while on its way from the port city of Bosasso to Dubai late on Friday.

Officials from the Indian Directorate-General of Shipping (DGS) said they hadn’t received any information about such an attack. East African Seafarers’ Assistance Programme coordinator Andrew Mwangura, however, said the hijack could have been the result of a business deal going sour though he could not name the dhow. It is not clear which part of the country the 16 Indians are from.

Now comes a report of an unsuccessful attack on a VLCC oil tanker in which the dhow may have played the role of "mothership" for the pirates. Reported here:

In a further development a mothership used in the attack on the 264,800-dwt A Elephant (built 1987) was itself hijacked in the region at the weekend, an informed source told TradeWinds.

The Liberia-flagged tanker has suffered some damage but there were no casualties amongst the crew during the assault at around 06:00 local time on Monday in the eastern part of the Gulf of Aden.

"One mothership and two skiffs approached the vessel several times and opened fire," a statement from the UK-based Maritime Security Centre (Horn of Africa) [MSCHOA] read.

"The ship’s crew successfully avoided being boarded. A helicopter of the EU NAVFOR warship Aconit arrived on scene quickly, following the early distress call."

MSCHOA report:

13/07/2009 09.13 GMT

A 265.000-ton tanker, flying the flag of Liberia, was attacked this morning by probable Somali pirates in the Eastern part of the Gulf of Aden in position 12 23N 043 42E.

One mothership and two skiffs approached the vessel several times and opened fire. The ship’s crew successfully avoided being boarded. A helicopter of the EU NAVFOR warship ACONIT quickly arrived on scene, following the early distress call.

There were no casualties and only light damage to the vessel, which was registered with the Maritime Security Centre, Horn of Africa.

Aconit is a French frigate (see here).


Ship photo of A Elephant by Christian Bråthen from Shipspotting.com and used in accord with terms of that site.

UPDATE: Winds for the area of the attack (from here). Note that red arrow points attack area where winds are at or below those historically favored by pirates in small open boats.

Sunday Ship History: Every Sailor is a Firefighter

The other day I was talking to a professional firefighter and mentioned that I, unlike most civilians, had been exposed to firefighting training as a part of going to sea. I used the old Navy saying, "Every sailor is a firefighter."

We took fire safety and fire fighting preparedness very seriously on the ammunition ship I served in, but really not any more than on a destroyer or cruiser.

But it got me to thinking that most Americans don't always appreciate that sailors have to save their own ships if they can or deal with the sea. Lose your ship and it's a long wet walk home.

Take these true tales: A ship gets surprised by a terrorist bomb while in port. The crew, though suffering 17 dead, fights back by putting out fires, stopping the spread of flooding and saving their ship.

Another ship is hit by a surprise missile attack while on patrol. The crew fights back, saving their ship:

The explosion, blast and fragmentation of the second warhead caused severe structural damage to the ship's hull, bulkheads and superstructure on the port side at frame 110. The shrapnel and blast also caused catastrophic damage inside Stark between frames 100 and 140, destroying watertight integrity, cracking arresting stakes, compromising fire boundaries and severing the port firemain which immediately started to flood the ship and create a list to port as shown in Figure 3-5. Each missile injected approximately 300 pounds of propellant into the berthing complex. The combustion of the burning propellant resulted in a near instantaneous heat release of 12 million BTUs, which caused a rapid thermal pulse seldom seen in normal fires. The fire reached "flashover" in less than one minute. (Flashover is a condition whereby overhead temperatures reach 1400-1500º F. When heat is this intense, all combustible materials burst into flames and fire engulfs the space.) The majority of the casualties (25) occurred in ship's control berthing. As the surviving crewmembers scrambled to escape the berthing spaces, several donned EEBDs and all proceeded to their practiced egress routes. Five men went through the hole in the skin of the ship on the port side and were later picked up. All had used EEBDs before going into the water. All other survivors used designated egress routes. Later inspection revealed five men were killed in combat systems berthing and three in chief quarters berthing.

Meanwhile, the fire started to spread vertically to the riser compartment, then CIC and the CO's cabin. Stark was struggling to maintain firemain pressure. At 2200 hours, pressure was restored to the ship aft of frame 180, enabling firefighters on the fantail to start pressing the fight forward. However, because of the ruptured firemain, there was no capability to fight fires forward or to flood the missile magazine. A 1.5-inch hose run forward from the starboard side of the 02 level eventually flooded the magazine. At 2300, the CO ordered all engines stopped so P-250 pumps on the forecastle could maintain suction and provide firefighting water to the forward bulkhead fire boundaries. Once this was achieved, crewmembers made a determined effort to set and advance fire boundaries and get the fire under control.

Casualties suffered as a result of the explosion significantly depleted the fire teams. In fact, both repair party leaders, number 1 hose operators and investigators for Repair 2 and 3 had been killed in the first moments of the conflagration. Strong leadership at the department head level and the solid professionalism of the crew drove the remaining crewmembers to continue battling the fires. At 0134, May 18, USS Waddell arrived on scene to provide medical and damage control supplies.

Shortly after this point, the CO became concerned when the angle of list reached 16 degrees. The executive officer (XO) organized a dewatering party, directing one group to enter the berthing area and secure the firemain piping. A second group was sent to cut holes in the bulkhead above the main deck to dewater spaces and recover the angle of list.

As morning dawned, it became very clear that Stark's exhausted crew, having mounted a determined and persistent fight, was now too worn out and depleted to continue without assistance. Teams from Waddell and Conyngham moved aboard. Firefighting and dewatering efforts were continued until late morning, when the fire was considered out and reflash watches set.

Survivability Principles Applied: Stark was a well-qualified and trained ship. All officers and chief petty officers were general damage control qualified. All personnel in each repair locker were qualified for their assigned positions. Repair party training was conducted on a regular basis and all hands understood the ship's main drainage and electrical systems. These factors contributed significantly to saving the ship after the initial damage, loss of 18 percent of the crew and a significant portion of its damage control leadership.

No serious injuries or loss of life occurred during Stark's damage control effort. Six additional skilled backups were assigned to each repair locker. This significantly helped minimize losses. Stark carried twice the OBA allowance and three times the canisters specified; these were all used in the 12-hour battle to save the ship.

Where do sailors learn these skills?



And some Sea Cadets visit the Buttercup:


It's harder when there's smoke, fire, noise, wounded, killed and the like.

Training matters.

"You will not rise to the occasion, you will default to the level of your training."

Navy's website for Damage Control, Firefighting Engineering and CBR-D.

Website for book about USS Stark No Higher Honor. Website for book about the Forrestal fire Sailors to the End

By the way, when was the last time you checked your smoke alarms and tried your house evacuation plan? In the dark?

Book Review: Terror on the Seas by Daniel Sekulich

"Psst. Psssst. Hey you! - Yes, you - So, interested in pirates, are you?
Want to meet some? Want to interview one?"

If you find that a siren's song, then do as Daniel Sekulich did and get on an airplane and fly around the world to poor villages on the shorelines of the world's great sea corridors of commerce. Then announce that you want to meet a pirate or two. . .

My friend* Daniel's new book, Terror on the Seas: True Tales of Modern-Day Pirates is, at its heart, a book of the old school of adventure journalism -the sort of tale that, over a whiskey in a cozy bar, begins "There I was . . ."

The challenge in writing this book was how to get into those places where a misstep would make you into prey for criminals and yet have enough room to get back with the story. Mr. Sekulich succeeds - and takes you along for the ride.

Like any good crime story, it's not just about the criminal pirates - it's also about their victims: The honest sailor who, after being captured by pirates, is now afraid to go back to sea. The shipping and fishing companies that pay off pirate leaders to have their ships left alone. The starving masses whose food relief is caught up in the pirate ransom schemes. The fisherman who has lost his boat or nets or motor that he spent a lifetime getting . . .

In setting the scene for talking about modern piracy, Mr. Sekulich sets out a short history of this long-running low intensity conflict - a conflict in which thousands of lives have been lost, most of them slipping beneath the sea without notice.

As he moves into the modern day, you learn there are "pirate kings" in places like Somalia, where piracy has taken a corporate turn and, in contrast, there are wretchedly poor men who sneak aboard ships in the dark of night to steal whatever they can find to get enough money to put bread in their mouths.

In this book, you visit with Andrew Mwangura of Kenya - a man devoted to helping sailors, according to Mr. Sekulich. Mr. Mwangura has been accused of being some sort of agent of the Somali pirates. Mr. Sekulich has defended him against this charge.

You also have dinner with a "reformed pirate" of the Malacca Strait who talks and then dies, in an ironic reversal of the old pirate credo about dead men and tales.

This is not dry academic tome full of theory about "pirate democracy" or justifications for piracy as a result of poverty, pollution or over fishing by "others." It is a book that takes you to the beach to see piracy from that side and not just from the ships that pass by the pirate shores.

It helps that Mr. Sekulich knows something about ships. He can distinguish the bow from the stern and grasps the vital role in the world economy these hunks of metal play.

It's a very good read.

*We have never met in person, but exchange frequent emails and have been interviewed together for a radio program. Daniel and I comment on each other's blogs. His blog is Modern Day Pirate Tales.

Egypt nabs Al-Qaida-linked terror cell plotting Suez attacks

Attacks in the Suez Canal? Prospective terrorists caught, as reported in Egypt nabs Al-Qaida-linked terror cell plotting Suez attacks:

Egyptian authorities have arrested 25 al-Qaida-linked terrorists on suspicion of plotting attacks on oil pipelines and ships crossing the Suez Canal.

The Egyptian Interior Ministry said the new cell was led by a Palestinian and included 24 Egyptians, mostly engineers and technicians.

They planned to use mobile phones to detonate explosives against ships crossing the Canal, the statement said.

The group learned how to make car bombs through communicating with al-Qaida terrorists on jihadi Web sites, according to an Interior Ministry statement.

Last year it was reported that Egypt was planning to place cameras along the Canal:

The Suez Canal is Egypt’s third largest source of revenue after tourism and remittances. Currently about 7.5 percent of global trade passes through it.

More on the Canal from EIA World Oil Transit Chokepoints:

The Suez Canal is located in Egypt, and connects the Red Sea and Gulf of Suez with the Mediterranean Sea. The Canal is one of the world’s greatest engineering feats covering 120 miles. Oil shipments from the Persian Gulf travel through the Canal primarily to European ports, but also to the United States. In 2006, an estimated 3.9 million bbl/d of oil flowed northbound through the Suez Canal to the Mediterranean, while 0.6 million bbl/d travelled southbound into the Red Sea.

Over 3,000 oil tankers pass through the Suez Canal annually, and represent around 25 percent of the Canal’s total revenues. With only 1,000 feet at its narrowest point, the Canal is unable to handle large tankers. The Suez Canal Authority (SCA) has discussed widening and deepening the Canal to accommodate VLCCs and Ultra Large Crude Carriers (ULCC).

The 200-mile long Sumed Pipeline, or Suez-Mediterranean Pipeline, also provides a route between the Red and Mediterranean Seas by crossing the northern region of Egypt from the Ain Sukhna to the Sidi Kerir Terminal. The pipeline provides an alternative to the Suez Canal, and can transport 3.1 million bbl/d of crude oil. In 2006, nearly all of Saudi Arabia’s northbound shipments (approximately 2.3 million bbl/d of crude) were transported through the Sumed pipeline. The pipeline is owned by Arab Petroleum Pipeline Co., a joint venture between EGPC, Saudi Aramco, Abu Dhabi’s ADNOC, and Kuwaiti companies.

Closure of the Suez Canal and the Sumed Pipeline would divert tankers around the southern tip of Africa, the Cape of Good Hope, adding 6,000 miles to transit time.

Somali Pirates: Monsoon Attacks

Conventional wisdom is that the Somali pirates don't attack often during monsoon season. However, as the recent capture of a Turkish ship indicates, there are exceptions. But the question that must be answered is "Why now?" - and the answer is with the winds. Look at the winds under the "red smear" I put on the wind chart above - the winds are about 10 knots - a range in which the Somali pirates operate - and the lowered winds are smack dab on the "secure" transit lane.

In short, weather - even during monsoon season - is sometimes favorable for pirates in small boats, and now is such a time. Ships transiting the area should keep alert.

An email from my Congressman

When the vote on the "cap and trade bill" bill was pending before the U.S. House of Representatives, I dispatched a little note to my representative, urging him to vote against the bill. Here's his response from yesterday in blue, with my comments in red:

Dear Mr. X:

Thank you for contacting me about H.R. 2454, The American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 (ACES). I appreciate hearing from you [I'm sure you do not, since I disagree with you].

For too long, our country's dependence on foreign petroleum products [so we should be drilling off our own shores and developing oil shale and coal gasification projects, right?] and other non-renewable sources of energy [if you mean all that coal and natural gas and domestic oil that provide jobs for Americans why don't you say so? Do you consider uranium used in non-air polluting nuclear reactors as "non-renewable?"] has undermined our national security [another argument for drilling on our own shores and developing oil shale, bio fuels and etc.], polluted the air [So, assuming we stop buying "foreign oil" (too bad for you Canada and Mexico) then no other country will then rush forward to buy that oil and use it, often in ways far more polluting than in the ways we use it?- doesn't, in fact, the U.S. use of oil, under the guidelines for pollution already existing actually benefit the planet? Further, wasn't it under the guise of "clean air" that we adopted all those ethanol standards that resulted in lowering gas mileage and increasing pollution from ethanol plants and increasing food and other prices?] and delayed development of alternative forms of energy [hard to drive your car using wind or solar power - but I understand bio-diesel and other synfuel projects show promise]. ACES moves our country away from this dangerous dependence on foreign oil and toward energy Independence [so would "drill here, drill now" but I bet you don't support that]. ACES sets forth a comprehensive energy framework that limits carbon emissions [which may or may not be a problem], promotes utilization of renewable energies [tax incentives that distort the market] and provides incentives for the development of green jobs [i.e. throws tax money at the problem in hopes that something might work, rather than allowing the market system to work through the problem at less expense to tax payers - and which really only may replace jobs lost due to other Congressional mandates].

ACES requires electric suppliers that sell more than four million megawatt hours of electricity to consumers per year to meet a percentage of their load with renewable energy forms beginning in 2012 [Congressman: Do you have a wind turbine on your beach or mountain property? See the photo above -looks lovely, doesn't it? Do you want one visible from your front window? Wood is a "renewable resource - is it okay for power plants to convert to burning trees?How about building some more hydroelectric dams? Might that cause some endangered species issues? More nuke power plants? Can we store the nuclear waste in your backyard?]. ACES also limits the amount of greenhouse gases that certain industrial and large-scale emitters release into the air [what if your understanding of greenhouse gases is wrong - is it worth placing the cost of this on the tax paying public until the research is better understood on a scientific basis?]. ACES requires that by 2020, greenhouse gas emissions are cut by at least 17 percent below 2005 levels [which factories in your district will close and move overseas, taking their jobs with them in order to avoid this cut and the ones that are sure to follow?]. This reduction is equal to removing 500,000,000 cars from the roads [Since the U.S. doesn't have 500,000, 000 cars on the road, exactly which other countries burden are we picking up here at our expense?].

The bill's clean energy requirements will stimulate private sector investment in energy technologies and will create an estimated 51,000 new jobs in North Carolina [Exactly how will this bill do that? I note in the next sentence you offer up incentives for private sector "initiatives" - shouldn't the "clean energy requirements" be stimulation enough as you imply here?]. In addition to promoting private sector investment in energy technologies, ACES will fund renewable energy and energy efficiency initiatives [?], including the following: a financial assistance program for retooling existing factories for the manufacture of electric vehicles [electricity produced how, exactly? Nuke power plans, coal fired plants, hydroelectric dams, wind farms on your beaches? - and what do we do with those used batteries that electric cars will generate?], a program to develop and commercialize clean energy technologies [what a wonderfully meaningless phrase] , grants to community development organizations to promote energy conservation in low-income rural and urban communities [paying off some political debt to "community development organizations" by soaking tax payers to tell people to go around shutting off air conditioners, televisions and riding mass transit?] and grants to colleges to develop programs of study that prepare students for careers in renewable energy and energy efficiency [we used to call that "engineering school" where they earned "engineering degrees" - many colleges in North Carolina already have such programs - UNC Charlotte, North Carolina State and Duke come to mind - and I'll bet there are lots of programs at the community college level, too, already].

With a combination of price spike protections, energy refunds and cost-saving technology [How, by re-distributing tax payer money from the "wealthy?"], this bill will protect consumers [From who or what, exactly? Congressional mandates that will raise prices? Community organizers?], keep costs low [How, again?], and protect current jobs [Except those in the auto, coal, oil, refining and natural gas industries] by helping energy-intensive industries transition to a cleaner, more profitable future [How, exactly? What's the profit model you envision, exactly?]. According to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the legislation would cost a typical American household less than a postage stamp per day, or less than $111 a year [Give me cite to this one . . and over what time period? If I have to replace my cars, my refrigerator, air conditioning and heating units, redo my windows and re-insulate my house, it's gonna cost me more than that per year]. Lower income households will see no cost increases [Is that because you are shifting the cost to actual tax paying households?]; in fact, the Congressional Budget Office found that the legislation would actually save lower-income households $40 per year [And which year will that be?]. To maintain fiscal responsibility, the bill will not increase the deficit over the next ten years [Meaning until its provisions kick in?].

Though the bill is not perfect [Not even close], I believe it is a step in the right direction [Sometimes, Congressman, it's better to do nothing than to do the wrong thing, even if you have good motives]. On June 26, 2009, ACES came before the House for a vote. I voted for the bill and it passed by a margin of 219-212 [Imagine that - 212 Representatives who don't agree with you on this bill - they must be really dumb]. The bill has been referred to the Senate for further action.

Again, thank you for contacting me about this issue. Please contact me about other issues important to you. [Count on it][By the way, I'm sure you set a good example by walking from North Carolina to Washington or taking your electric car or solar powered airplane or train, right? And your house is solar or geothermal powered with your own wind turbine and every appliance you own meets the highest energy savings standard, including the use of those mercury polluting energy saving light bulbs? Right?]

Sincerely,

Brad Miller
Member of Congress

Somali Pirates: Update on latest Hijack

More info on pirate capture of Turkish bulk ship Horizon I here:

Omer Ozgur, from Horizon Shipping, said the Horizon I was continuing on its course despite the hijack.

The pirates have not yet issued any demands or contacted the firm.

Andrew Mwangura, of the East African Seafarers' Assistance Programme, which works to free ships, said the attack came as a surprise.

"In this season it is hard to take ships because monsoon winds make the seas rough. No-one expected attacks at this time," he told Reuters news agency.

Earlier, Nato spokesman Commander Chris Davies told the BBC's Network Africa programme that pirates in the Gulf of Aden were having less success this year compared with last year.

This report says the pirates paid a price:

Reports from Puntland indicate that two of the five captors on the sea-jacked Turkish bulker MV HORIZON 1 are injured - one of them seriously. Communications indicate that allegedly forces from an Indian naval vessel had taking the boarding sea-shifta under fire - injuring two. If Indian naval forces were involved could so far not be confirmed by officials from the Indian navy. Sure is that two Turkish frigates raced to the area of the attack. Istanbul-based Horizon Shipping had said earlier that only three attackers managed to board the vessel, according to media reports, while NATO spokesman Cmdr. Chris Davies said the Turkish warship Gediz had seen at least four pirates on the deck of the ship, but others may have been out of sight.

The ship was taken in the Internationally Recommended Transit Corridor, "which is not good news because that's where the ships are meant to be safer," Cmdr. Davies said to AP. Warships patrol the corridor, where ships are encouraged to travel in groups to help prevent attack. Attacks in the corridor are rare, and a Turkish warship on escort duty was diverted to the scene shortly after the Horizon-1 sounded the alarm. A report from a local Lloyd’s Marine Intelligence Unit correspondent suggests that at the onset of the attack, the master requested urgent assistance by radio. But most navies will not intervene after pirates are on board a ship for fear of harming the hostages.

Several pirate attacks still occur off Somalia's lawless coast each week despite poor weather and the presence of international warships in the Gulf of Aden. Andrew Mwangura, of the East African Seafarers' Assistance Programme which works to free ships, confirmed the seizure. "In this season it is hard to take ships because monsoon winds make the seas rough. No one expected attacks at this time," he told Reuters news agency.

Turkey's Transportation Minister Binali Yildirim confirmed that Somali pirates boarded the ship, rendered the crew ineffective and took control of the cargo ship. Yildirim told a press conference in Istanbul that the Turkish "TCG Gediz" frigate went to the scene of the attack, however did not intervene in order not to risk the lives of the crew members. Turkish warships have been in the area since last year as part of an
international naval force to crack down on pirates and Somali arms traffickers. The minister said that now two Turkish warships - the frigates "Gediz" and the "Gaziantep" - were closely following the cargo ship, which was en route of Somalia's port of Eyl. The pirates have not yet issued any demands, or contacted the shipping firm. Yildirim said necessary steps would be taken when conditions occurred.

Ömer Özgür of Istanbul-based Horizon Shipping. "According to the information we received, there are three unarmed pirates onboard the ship," Özgür was quoted by Anatolia news agency as saying. "They are holding a meeting with the ship's captain," he added. "There is nothing to worry about. There is no reason to fear for the crew." This statement, however, is controversial.

Horizon I photo from Shipspotting.com by Andreas Schlatterer. Used in accord with Shipspotting rules.

Somali Pirates: Turkish Tanker Taken

BBC reports here:

A Turkish cargo ship with 23 crew on board has been seized by pirates off the coast of Somalia.

Istanbul-based Horizon Shipping said pirates in speed boats had surrounded the Horizon I vessel in the Gulf of Aden at about 0530 GMT.

Three attackers managed to board the tanker, which was heading from Saudi Arabia to Jordan, the firm said.

Looks more like a bulker to me.

Photo from Shipspotting.com by Andreas Schlatterer. Used in accord with Shipspotting rules.

Multi-Purpose Offshore Patrol Vessels

I think in keeping with my call for using something other than billion dollar Aegis cruisers and destroyers for patrolling against pirates who use $400 boats, AK-47s and RPGs - see Department of Cheaper Pirate Fighting and links therein, blogger Brickmuppet sends along a link to a company developing a multi-purpose Offshore Patrol Vessels.

It might be a little more sophisticated than my original anti-pirate vessel, pictured nearby with the tank on it. Though the thoughts are the same.

According to "V.Navy" the French built vessels can be used for several things:

V.Navy aims to design multi purposes vessels able to fight against piracy, terrorism, illegal fishing (coast guard vessels), but also able to be used as Fast Supply Intervention Vessel.
***
These kinds of patrol vessels are completely suitable and legitimate to monitor dangerous areas like Gulfs of Guinea or Aden.

And V. Navy's brochure:

Offshore Patrol Vessels V.Navy has been specially design to fulfill specific missions to fight against piracy, terrorism, illegal fishing (coast guard vessels), but also able to be used as Fast Supply Intervention Vessel.

Able to accommodate 28 persons dedicated to the mission, it can as well transport 24 passengers.

Control station situated at bridge level is composed of two control stations, forward and aft, a debriefing room is also incorporated in the design.

Its great autonomy of 10 days is provided through its large fuel and fresh water tanks.
***
Main dimensions are:
Length between perpendicular : 46m
Length overall : 48.5m
Beam max : 9.5m
Summer Draft : 1.8m
***
WaterJets with Quadruple marine diesel main propulsion engines will be utilised for the propulsion system to reach a maximum speed of 28.5 knots
***
A. DECK EQUIPMENT
1. Typical equipment
OPV has typical deck equipment for FSIV operation:
- crane
- anchor winches
- timber covered deck
- 4 x International reefer connections (415V AC/50Hz) (E1 says: Plug in comm van! It's modular!)
2. Specific equipment
One launching ramp is constructed integral to the vessels transom to cater for RIB deployment. There is an extended hinged launch gate at the bottom of the ramp that will be deployed with manual hand winch. A single fixed electric capstan winch is installed on the side bulwark area adjacent to the RIB's. Removable pulley stations will be placed at the top of the launch ramp and in front of the second RIB
cradle for retrieval purpose.

A heavy duty portable platform is constructed to fit into the launch ramp for crew boat operations. The insert provide flush deck and transom for normal crew boat operation and lock in place by simple and robust pin type system for easy removal.

B. BALLISTIC
1. Protection
Ballistic protection is achieved by Dyneema and is included to the bulkhead of accommodation and fuel tank areas.
2. Weapons stations
The vessel structure is suitably strengthened to support the weapon and its stresses and a heavy insert plate is fitted to the deck. pedestals or mounts are client supply included.
Arms store is provided on main deck

It looks to me like there's room for one boat to have the aerostat for long range radar detection, too (see here and CDR Salamander here.) And I'm sure the V boats could handle UAVs. USVs and all the other alphabet soup of unmanned ship extenders just fine.

Add to the squadron a helicopter capable ship and you are off to the littorals. Even the "idiots-go-to-sea crew" on Whale Wars can operate a helo, after all.

Are these boats or the ones I've suggested to be cobbled from offshore oil supply vessels meant to take on mines, submarines, aircraft or fleets of warships? Well, no, they are not. But for fighting pirates and terrorists in littoral waters, they may be just the thing.

Monday Reading

Fred Fry's Maritime Monday 169, with photos of Long Island Sound ferries, and, as usual,
much, much more.

A report that a sponsor of piracy off Somalia is being invited to the U.S. by Congress here, a report which is partially editorial. I wonder if anyone in Congress has the nads and sense of humor to paraphrase Captain Renault ("I'm shocked, shocked to find that piracy is going on in Puntland!"):

This is part of frequent wrong US policies towards former Somalia, which always calls for failed unity of Somalia and overlooks the growing democracies in the region like Republic of Somaliland. The US supports the shaky transitional government of Somalia in Mogadishu for last 20 years without results. US Congress and Government wasted enough money to restore hope in Somalia; however, it is time to look into other alternatives like Somaliland. Somaliland established democratic government without outside aid.

Puntland hosts thousands of Somali pirates without proper action taken against them; even the pirates are considered “Kings in Piratestan”. They marry most beautiful girls and own luxury cars and houses.

A sobering reason to keep the government from operating businesses.

Brickmuppet has an odd- very odd- look at leadership and courage. Yes, it's old Saturday morning cartoons. Takes about 5 minutes. The Navy will probably soon adopt it as the "new' LMET.

Galrahn starts an open thread about "small ships". You know my answer.

Sunday Ship History: The Eagle Ships

During World War I, the U.S. Navy found that it needed some smaller ships to operate farther off shore than the converted yachts and other wooden hulled vessels it was using as "submarine chasers." Major shipyards were busy building destroyers and other major ships, so the government called on Henry Ford:

Naval officials believed only a steel ship could successfully combat the U-boat menace. Such a craft would have to be designed so that its component parts would not require the steel needed for other war purposes. The new subchaser would have to be large and rugged enough to withstand the North Atlantic weather and fast enough to catch a submarine.

A major problem facing the U.S. Navy was finding a company that would undertake the task of manufacturing a ship of this kind. In February 1918 Secretary Daniels asked Henry Ford if the automobile giant would put his resources to work building subchasers. Ford reportedly asked Daniels, "How quick do you want them?" The secretary replied he wanted deliveries to begin by summer and one hundred vessels completed by the end of the year.

Ford accepted the challenge but carefully weighed the difficulties of such a project. In less than four months he would have to construct a new plant, devise ways to fabricate the ships and invent special tools to produce and assemble the crafts. Ford had never built a ship, but he was a master of his art and believed he could produce at least one vessel a day once the factory was in full operation.

In three weeks the Navy Department created a design for the vessel, designating the subchaser as the Eagle class. A model was soon tested for stability and speed. Meanwhile, Ford began constructing a factory. In May 1918 the first keel was laid.

Ford knew how to mass produce things - and the first step was to build a massive plant to allow for the mass production of something never produced in mass before -ships:

Ford's plan for building the ships was revolutionary. Establishing a new plant on the River Rouge on the outskirts of Detroit, he proposed to turn them out as factory products, using mass production techniques, and employing factory workers. He would then send the boats by the Great Lakes and the St. Lawrence River to the Atlantic coast. However, Ford had little part in the design of the boats. Except for his insistence upon simple plans and the use of steam turbines, he contributed little of a fundamental nature to the design concept.

The assembly plant was completed in five months, and the first keel was laid in May 1918. The machinery and fittings were largely built at Ford's Highland Park plant in Detroit. At first, Ford believed that boats could be sent down a continuously moving assembly line like automobiles. The size of the craft made this too difficult, however, and a "step-by-step" movement was instituted on the 1,700-foot line. The first Eagle boat was launched on 11 July. The launching of these 200-foot craft was a formidable operation. Not built on ways from which they could slide into the water, the hulls moved slowly from the assembly line on enormous, tractor-drawn flatcars. They were then placed on a 225-foot steel trestle alongside the water's edge which could be sunk 20 feet into the water by hydraulic action.


The original contract called for delivery of 100 ships by 1 December 1918. Although the first seven boats were completed on schedule, succeeding ones did not follow as rapidly, even though the labor force reached 4,380 by July and later peaked at 8,000. The chief reasons were Ford's excessive initial optimism and the inexperience of labor and supervisory personnel in shipbuilding.

Upon the signing of the Armistice in November 1918, the number under contract, previously raised from 100 to 112, was cut to 60. Of these, seven were commissioned in 1918, and the remaining 53 were commissioned in 1919.

Oh, and that "Eagle" name? Explained :

The term "Eagle Boat" stemmed from a wartime "Washington Post" editorial which called for "...an eagle to scour the seas and pounce upon and destroy every German submarine."

How did the Eagle ships do? It seems not much - WWI was pretty much over when they came online. Some were sent to Russia to help withdraw U.S. forces in 1919.

Of the 60 built, a few became aircraft tenders, several were transferred to the U.S. Coast Guard and others were used for odd jobs until sold or sunk as target ships.

Among the Navy survivors some served into World War II, including USS Eagle 56, which, however, apparently blew up and sank off the coast of Maine on 23 April 1945. At the time, the explanation of its sinking was that it suffered boiler explosion. Many years later it was confirmed she was sunk by a German U-boat. 49 men were lost, 13 rescued. The research that revised the explanation helped by a Navy Historical Center researcher.

The Ford facility they were built in became famous as the Ford River Rouge plant.

There appears to be model kit available.

Mass produced ships? The next time it was done better. But, then again, they had a model to follow.

China: Sri Lanka and the Chinese String of Pearls

Lots of reasons to read Michael J. Totten: A Conversation with Robert D. Kaplan, but the Chinese plan to control its vital sea lanes is a big one. In this dialogue, the discussion is about Chinese support for Sri Lanka's obliteration of the Tamil Tigers and the rationale behind that support:

Kaplan:
***
Now, why did the Chinese want Sri Lanka? Because Sri Lanka is strategically located. The main sea lines of communication between the Bay of Bengal and the Arabian Sea, and between the South China Sea and the Indian Ocean. It’s part of China’s plan to construct a string of pearls – ports that they don’t own, but which they can use for their warships all across the Indian Ocean.
***
Kaplan: The West thinks of Sri Lanka as unimportant, whereas for the Chinese and the Indians it’s very important. And I consider Sri Lanka part of the new geography. It’s part of the new maritime geography, and that makes it very important.
***
MJT: What’s China’s ultimate objective?

Kaplan: They’re putting a lot of money into their navy, more than their army. Their ultimate objective is to project sea power, and not just in the western Pacific which makes them a great regional power, but also in the Indian Ocean which makes them a great power in total.

MJT: Do you get the sense that China is becoming more ambitious as it gets more powerful?

Kaplan: I think as their economy develops, and as they have more and more economic interests around the world, they suddenly have more national interests. As they trade more, they have more things to protect. So they develop a world view and their military expands accordingly. It’s very similar to the U.S. military expansion in the late 19th century and the early 20th century before World War I.
***
MJT: So you’re working on a book about the Indian Ocean.

Kaplan: Yeah. I’m deep into it. One day we’re going to wake up from Iraq and Afghanistan, and we’re going to see a changed world. We’re going to see a world where there are still geopolitical contests, but they’ll be between China and India. We’ll see the emergence of China on the world’s seas with less U.S. dominance. We’re going to see a more maritime world. We may live in an era of globalization, but 90 percent of all goods travel by sea in containers. It’s container shipping that allows for the whole globalization, the clothes we wear, the prices we pay for them, etc. Those who control the sea lanes are going to be crucial.

Now, we’ve seen a little of this already in the news with the piracy issue. When does piracy thrive when you read about piracy historically? It thrives when trade is thriving. Pirates are parasites. The more international trade is thriving, the more hosts are available for parasites. So piracy is an indication that things are good, in a way.

MJT: Right.

Kaplan: And we see how critical these sea lines of communication are if just a few hundred pirates can get ships to divert from using the Suez Canal and instead choosing to go around southern Africa. Which is what’s happening.

So I think we’re going to make up more of a maritime world where the rim line of the world is going to be between the Horn of Africa and the Sea of Japan with the Strait of Malacca as sort of the Fulda Gap of the 21st Century. The Fulda Gap, you know, was a valley in West Germany during the Cold War where Soviet tanks would come through if there was ever a confrontation.

Totten and Kaplan, both indispensable. Support Totten by hitting his PayPal link and Kaplan by buying his books.

Map is from JOE 2008 published by the U.S. Joint Forces Command and downloadable as a pdf here. I have modified it by adding the Chinese Navy's deployment off Somalia in its anti-piracy role (see here) where China can try out out of area operations in a relatively benign environment while observing/working with other navies (see China's "Maritime Chess'. Reportedly the Chinese force has escorted hundreds of ships (video here):

Despite bad weather, the Chinese navy's anti-piracy escort fleet has completed another escort mission to protect 13 merchant ships from Somali pirates' attack.

At 8 AM local time, the escort fleet entered a dust storm in waters west of the Gulf of Aden. Measures were taken to ensure there was safe space between the merchant ships, and smooth communication. 5 hours later, the ships safely arrived in the waters of the Bab Al-Mandab Straight, marking one more successful mission for the escort fleet. China's anti-piracy naval task force has so far safeguarded 514 ships on 72 missions.

And, all the while, gaining experience.

More on China's "String of Pearls" China's Defensive Zone, China's Sea Lanes, Myanmar: Washington’s geopolitics and the Straits of Malacca, India's Look East Policy, and at links therein.

As I keep saying, sea lines of communication are vital.

Let Freedom Ring

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

State Department’s David Foran Discusses Fighting Piracy

State Department’s David Foran Discusses Fighting Piracy:

[Mary Furnivall]: Why is it so difficult to stem pirate activity off the coast of East Africa? For example, off the coast of Somalia, I understand the pirates launch zodiac-type boats off a mother ship. With our satelitte technology, why cant we stop these mother ships?

A [David Foran]: The biggest problem is the huge area that pirates operate in. Mother ships are often pirated fishing boats that have crew members held as hostages. These vessels can be difficult to track. Again, there are limited assets available to try to track pirates.

Q [cairoirc@state.gov]: Do you think if the stution on Somali changed this will help

A [David Foran]: Yes, I think everyone agrees that the ultimate solution to piracy lies on the land with a stable Somali government.

Q [cairoirc@state.gov]: Can all the world countries make a law by which they can overcome piracy

A [David Foran]: Most countries currently have laws that allow for the prosecution of pirates. One of our challenges is convincing governments to use these laws to prosecute pirates.

Q [Kenya Son]: Will arming ships get rid of pirates?

A [David Foran]: That's a good question. The short answer is we don't know. The US Coast Guard recently issued guidelines to US flagged vessels that will operate near Somalia advising that they should consider the use of armed or unarmed security. There's a great deal of concern on the part of industry about potential liability arising from the use of armed security.

U.S. House "Acts" on Pirates

The headline is a little misleading - National Journal Online - Congress Moves To Protect Shippers From Piracy - since it's bill that has only passed the House. As you will read in the article, some don't agree that sending Marines to sea on merchants is the very best answer to the problem:

Enter Amendment No. 24 -- part of the $550 billion National Defense Authorization Act -- which would require the Defense Department to put small teams of four or five Marines on American-flagged ships carrying U.S. cargoes. The House approved the bill June 25, while the Senate has yet to move on it.

Ship owners, many of whom have been paying insurance premiums of $40,000 to $60,000 per transit through Somali waters, are ecstatic.

"This bill recognizes that there is an inherent need for the U.S. government to protect American-flagged ships in the region," said Philip Shapiro, president and CEO of New York-based Liberty Maritime Corp., whose ship the Liberty Sun was attacked April 14 but managed to escape.

"There is no doubt in our minds that putting armed soldiers on board is a highly effective solution and it will definitely prevent hijacking of the vessel," said Per Gullestrup, CEO of Copenhagen-based Clipper Projects, who negotiated the release of his ship CEC Future and its 13 crew members after pirates captured it last fall. None of his ships stand to benefit from the legislation, but Gullestrup has been an advocate for stepped-up international military assistance.

First, if the government charges for the services of the Marines, as it ought to in my opinion, the price will be over $40k per ride, counting per diem, travel, pay and allowances, etc.

Second, it only applies to some ships:

The legislation won't cover every ship sailing through the Gulf of Aden or off Somalia's Eastern coast that flies the Stars and Stripes. In a given year, 54 American-flagged ships travel the region, 40 of which carry humanitarian aid cargo from the federal government. But of those, fewer than 10 are small enough or slow enough to be at risk of attack and require Marine embeds, according to the U.S. Maritime Administration.

Third, this may not be the least expensive option:

... Pham argued that the U.S. could largely dodge piracy if the government purchased grain in East Africa instead of shipping food from the U.S. But shipping and agricultural interests have successfully blocked a policy shift toward sending local grain overland. Liberty Maritime has spent $229,000 on lobbying so far this year and the industry has a whole over $6 million, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

"There wouldn't be the Maersk Alabama and others if we didn't buy grain in the U.S. and chug it halfway across the world," Pham said. "If that grain was purchased locally in Africa, there wouldn't be this shipping issue."

Finally, as Pham also notes the probability of attack on a U.S. ship is pretty low.

I think this amendment needs some more, real thought. Though we are talking about Congress.

Somali Pirates: Al Jazeera Videos

MarineBuzz has links to some outstanding videos featuring direct interviews with Somali pirates at Al Jazeera Videos

There's a lesson in trickle down economics here, too, as the pirate home bases prosper to some extent from ransoms.

Lots of self justification on the part of the pirates, too.

Terrorists in Mumbai

I pondered a little while on whether or not to link to the Channel 4 Report found at Gates of Vienna as Mumbai Revisited.

On one hand, I hate spreading terrorist hate.

On the other hand, it's important, though brutal, watching. There are a vast number of lessons to be learned if the show is analyzed properly.

Could this happen in the U.S. - if a small group of terrorist landed, say, in Miami or Charleston or Norfolk or San Diego or ...?

Are our police, with far better equipment (and can we presume? -better training) than the guards in the railway station capable of putting quick stop to this sort of quick hit action? With SWAT units available in nearly every city and county, trained to paramilitary standards, would we have responded faster? Or will the techniques used by the terrorists in spreading out their attacks and use of delayed fuze bombs create enough of "fog" that 185+ could die as in Mumbai.

To what extent, if at all, would an armed citizenry have been able to slow down or stop the attacks?

Before getting too sure of your responses to those questions, remember that a single gunman killed 32 people at Virginia Tech.

A RAND report on the Mumbai attack, "The Lessons of Mumbai" can be read here:

The dispersal of the attackers into separate teams indicates an effort to reduce operational risk. Once the attack began, the failure or elimination of any single team would not have put the other teams out of action. The only possible point of failure for the entire attack was while the terrorists were still at sea on their way to Mumbai.

A key point:

Gaps in Coastal Surveillance. The attacks highlighted India’s inability to effectively monitor its coastline—a condition that is common to many littoral states in both the developing and the developed world.

Speaking of monitoring your coastline, there's an interesting article in the latest issue of the U.S. Naval Institute's Proceedings, "Looking for Anomalies in All the Wrong Places" by LT Mark Munson- in discussing Maritime Domain Awareness analysis that looks for "anomalies" to suggest suspicious activity worth investigating, LT Munson points out that it's not always (maybe even rarely) the "anomalies" that bite you (footnote numbers deleted):

The fundamental flaw with this premise is the assumption that maritime terrorism or other illicit maritime activities are correlated with suspicious, illegal, or unusual behavior. A review of recent maritime terrorist acts demonstrates that this is clearly untrue. The boat used to attack the USS Cole (DDG-67) in Yemen in October 2000 was bought (not stolen) in the Saudi port of Jizan. The "most destructive act of terrorism in maritime history," the bombing of Superferry 14 in the Philippines in 2004, was conducted by a passenger who concealed the explosives in a television he brought aboard. Better security and safety practices on board Filipino ferries may have prevented that attack (or saved lives), but there was nothing anomalous about how the attack happened. Until they turned to ram the structures, there was nothing particularly unusual about the boats that attempted to strike the Al Basra and Khor al Amaya oil terminals in April 2004, killing three U.S. servicemen in the Persian Gulf.

In November 2002, al Qaeda-affiliated terrorists used small boats to escape after attempting to shoot down an Israeli airliner and destroying a hotel near Mombasa, Kenya. Such travel was not at all unusual in a region where small craft are commonly used to move along the East African coast. Loai Saqa, a Syrian associate of Abu Musab Zarqawi, was arrested by Turkish authorities in August 2005 while reportedly planning to attack Israeli cruise ships. The Turks were led to Saqa not through unusual maritime behavior, but because of an explosion and chemical fire in an apartment where attack preparations were being conducted. All accounts of the interrogations of the lone surviving gunman from the November 2008 attacks in Mumbai, India, indicate that the attackers traveled on board at least two vessels from Pakistan to Mumbai, hijacking at least one of them along the way. It is unclear, however, whether even a perfect, NORAD-like system for maritime traffic control would have detected that the routes used by those ships to transport the attackers to India were somehow anomalous.

The good Lieutenant could have added that the Mumbai terrorists arrived off the coast of India in an Indian vessel, thereby presumably "normalizing" their arrival - and making them invisible to anomaly analysis.

Maritime security is hard.

H/T: Lex