Perspective is everything

UPDATE: Probably should of labeled this. Something like-
Scene 1: How the staff views its pending visit to a ship.
Scene 2: How the ship views the pending staff visit.

We're just here to help you...

Somali pirates release tug being held off Puntland

Pirates have released the Russian bound tug they've been holding for a couple of months, apparently after payment of ransom, as reported here:

Somali pirates released a Danish-owned tugboat that was held for more than a month after a ransom was paid, local officials said Tuesday.
The British captain, Irish engineer and four Russian crew aboard the Svitzer Korsakov are "safe and healthy," said Ahmed Said Aw-Nur, the fisheries and ports minister in Puntland,a semiautonomous region of northeast Somalia. Aw-Nur told The Associated Press that the ship was freed after its Danish owner "negotiated with the criminals and paid hundreds of thousands of dollars for ransom." A regional official, who asked that his name not be used because he was not authorized to speak to the media, said US$700,000 (about €440,000) was paid. Aw-Nur condemned the paying of ransom "because it can encourage more piracy."

Aw-Nur is right, but the lame reaction of Puntland's "government" doesn't help either...related posts here and at the links therein.

If Puntland wants to stop pirates, they need to do it from the shore side.

UPDATE: BBC reports "anger" at ransom. Owner confirms release.

Increasing Coast Guard Arctic Flights

An increase in Coast Guard Arctic flights might not be a big story but check out the little gem in the middle of this piece:

The U.S. Coast Guard says it's stepped up surveillance flights to the Arctic.

It plans to complete one every two weeks to familiarize crews with the terrain.

A flight last week, called the Arctic Domain Awareness, also provided training for crew on the C-130 cargo plane.

Rear Adm. Gene Brooks, commander of the 17th Coast Guard District, said the Guard needs to know about the lay of the land and what other nations might be doing in the Arctic.

During one of the flights, which began last fall, Brooks said the Coast Guard was surprised to come upon Chinese research vessels.

Yeah, I'd keep an eye out for that...wonder what oil field they were researching? And what else they were looking into...

Ice trouble in the Great Lakes

Reported here:

Coast Guard officials on both sides of the St. Clair River are concerned vessels bound for Lake Huron may become stuck in ice as the shipping season resumes in coming days.

The official start of the shipping season is this week, with the lower St. Lawrence River locks opening Thursday and the Soo Locks opening March 25.

Sam Babisky, superintendent of operations for the Sarnia Coast Guard, said there's still a lot of ice in the narrow shipping channel known as the Huron Cut, which begins north of the St. Clair River.
"That ice there is blown off the shore," Babisky said. "There's hundreds if not thousands of square miles of the ice pack."

No word if officials have called Al Gore to come up and blow hot air on the ice.

Philippines sea jacking: 3 dead, 3 missing, 1 hurt

Reported here:

At least three persons were killed, one wounded, and three still missing in the seas off Polillo island after the passenger boat they were riding in was hijacked by alleged sea pirates early morning Monday, police said in a report Tuesday.

Report identified the victims as Angel Zenaroza (boat captain), Daniel de Leon and Linda Broso. The victims died on the spot after one of the assailants shot them with an improvised shotgun (sumpak).

Report said the passenger boat left Mauban port at around 4 a.m. and sailed towards Polillo with 10 passengers on board. While cruising the seas off Cagbalete island in Mauban, two of the passengers armed with a shotgun and handgun declared a holdup and subsequently shot the victims.

The suspects reportedly tied the victims and threw their bodies into the sea.

One of the passengers, Erick Ambas, was also wounded in the shooting.

The assailants, who are still unidentified, managed to escape using another motorboat driven by one of their accomplices.

Pre-boarding security checks seem to have missed a few things.

Arrow on map points to Polillo islands.

Somalia: Puntland challenges U.S. Navy to do something or go away

Interesting challenge here:

A Cabinet minister in Somalia's Puntland State government has called on the United States government to withdraw its naval forces from Somali shores or help in the campaign against local pirates.

Said Ahmed O'Nur, Puntland's Fisheries and Ports Minister, told Voice of America' s Somali-language program that U.S. Navy warships have been watching a hijacked ship for nearly two months without taking any military action against the pirates on board.

He indicated that there is "no communication" between the U.S. Navy and the government of Puntland.

According to the minister, the U.S. naval warships "allow" the pirates to go to and from the ship - Russian-registered Svitzer Korsakov, which pirates hijacked on Feb. 5.

"Local fishermen are not allowed to take their boats to sea," Minister O'Nur said during the interview.

He stated that locals informed the Puntland government that U.S. sailors disembark from their warships and use small boats to fish, adding: "Who allowed them to fish along our [Somali] coast?"

The Fisheries and Ports Minister called on the U.S. Navy to withdraw its ships from the Puntland coast or "convince the [Puntland] government about what they are doing there."

He also indicated that there are "many rumors" about reports of nuclear waste being dumped along Somalia's shores, which the Puntland government is to investigate.

Ignore the nuclear waste issue, that's just baloney, but consider the sovereignty issues posed by Puntland, which is not a recognized state, but a "breakaway" province of greater Somalia. Who has the power to permit the U.S. to take action in Somali waters?

UPDATE (3/18/08): Looking for suggestions on how to respond to this? First, write a nice note:

Dear Minister Said Ahmed O'Nurm:
Nice to hear from you in your recent interview with the Voice of America. Some of our ships, it is true, are visiting the international waters off the coast of Somalia after having chased some pirates into Somali waters. You might recall that some of our efforts to keep the pirates from being resupplied resulted in some controversy (see here,here,here, here).

In fact, the last we heard, Puntland soldiers were working to cut off supplies to the pirates who still hold the ship. How's that effort going? You forgot to mention it during the VOA interview. Oh, and about that "no communication" thing? Here's number for the U.S. Department of State (1-888-Tal-KLOT). If you want to chat, they have specialists who do just that. They might have a little trouble finding Puntland on the map, because they sorta think you are part of Somalia, so good luck.

Now, as to your fishing boats. They are free to go fishing if they follow some simple rules:

(1) They should assemble in one spot when they are ready to leave port and should proceed in a group to sea;
(2) They should fly a white flag on each boat;
(3) They should not approach the captured vessel;
(4) They should head out to sea and go fishing.

As long as they do those 4 simple things, they will not be bothered. However, there are a couple of things they should not do or we will have to take action:

(1) They should not approach the captured vessel (we will assume they are aiding the pirates if they do);
(2) They should not approach U.S. or Coalition warships;
(3) They should not attempt to capture any ships traveling in International Waters.

Simple rules, really.

By the way, since you are part of the Puntland governing body, we would like to point out that the pirates do have their captured ship and crew in the territorial waters off your coast. Under International Law, this means they are either your problem and its up to you to do something or its the problem of the Somalia government. We'll be happy to assist with planning if you all can figure out who is in charge. You can find us on one of the big gray ships off the coast near the captured ship.

As an additional thought, you might want to start thinking about blaming the pirates for all the trouble they have started, because, believe me, we would not be bobbing around out here if they hadn't grabbed that ship. And all those other ships...

Best regards,
Your friends in the United State Navy

Of course, after the nice letter, you make sure that the hostages are safe and at the first sign of trouble, you kick...

UPDATE2: Tug has reportedly been released. See here.

Monday Reading

Fred Fry's Maritime Monday 102 is up at gCaptain.com with some amazing photos and lotsa links.

UPDATE: Xformed has Monday Maritime Matters and a look at a ship's namesake.

Sunday Ship History: MoBoard

Let us begin, brethren, with a couple of odd notes, one of which might be explained herein, and the other of which will remain a mystery.

Picture the bridge of a destroyer which is plodding along in an area of the Pacific Ocean somewhere below Guam and near the equator, well off major shipping lanes, the Captain and the Navigator are both on the bridge, the CO bored and semi-dozing in his bridge chair, the Navigator also being the Officer of the Deck. The ship was on a classified mission and is on a course, roughly, of 340 degrees at 10 knots. Suddenly, the watch standers in the Combat Information Center report to the bridge that they have an intermittent contact ("skunk alpha") with a "constant bearing and decreasing range (CBDR)" with a "closest point of approach (CPA)" of close aboard (meaning that the destroyer and the unknown object were going to collide if neither changed course). The CIC crew reported the "skunk" was on a course of 160 degrees and traveling at a speed of 10 knots with a closing rate of 10 knots. The CO, since the mission had been classified, had his interest piqued about the possibility of an interloper. The Navigator questioned whether the object had any speed at all. Why?

When Admiral Raymond Spruance went to war, he had an odd practice, described here:

Spruance carried a rolled-up twenty-inch-square maneuvering board [a printed form used for solving relative motion problems], fastened by a paper clip. He was never without it, and when he entered the flag shelter he would casually toss it upon the book rack. There it remained until he retrieved it upon leaving. No one asked him to explain his mysterious maneuvering board.

Why would a surface warrior tote around a maneuvering board?

In fact, what the heck is a "maneuvering board?" Here's an explanation by description:

There is a bit of magic in a maneuvering board. It is nothing more than a pad of paper, with worksheets on it. It is about twelve inches on all sides. It has a circular “bullseye”drawn on the paper with graduated markings. Just what a radar screen looks like. A person needs a pencil, a pair of dividers, and parallel rulers to do maneuvering board problems. Real high tech stuff.
***
It also tells you whether or not another ship out there, sailing nearby, is going to pass close to you or even collide with you.

Think of it this way. You are driving your car along a road and you are approaching an intersection. You can see across the flat, level field. There is a car on another road headed towards the same intersection. You hold your left arm out the open window and point your finger at the approaching car. A few minutes later you do the same. If the approaching car is still at the same angle it was a few minutes before, and neither of you slow down or stop at the intersection, you will be able to touch that car with your outstretch hand shortly. That is also called a two car accident. The same principle applies to two ships at sea. We use a radar to get the distance to another ship. We use a compass mounted on a pedestal to take bearings to the other ship. The maneuvering board lets you plot the approach of another ship and determine how close it will come to your ship.

Back to the formation steaming I mentioned earlier. Let me put it another way. You are on a parade ground. There is a marching band in the middle of that parade ground.. You are a majorette. There are five of you in a line up front. There are five more baton twirlers in the back and four more along the side of the band as it marches down the field. You come to a point where the drum major orders everyone to turn to the left at once. When the formation makes that turn you and all the majorettes and baton twirlers are expected to be in the same position relative to the band that you were before the turn. You are supposed to be at the front of the band formation again. The same applies to ships in a formation at sea.

How to avoid collisions and sea and how to get into the right place in a formation can be explained by the proper use of a maneuvering board (I would suggest reading all of Mr. Sparkman's post to get a feel for some concerns that are raised when using a "moboard.")

A more compelling review of a failure of skill (or perhaps anticipation) or maneuvering board practice comes from the findings of the investigation into the collision between USS Frank E. Evans (DD-754) and the Australian carrier HMAS Melbourne in 1969:
Translated: ""At some stage during the "Form Column" maneuver, LTJG Ramsey attempted a maneuvering board solution but abandoned it because he thought it was impracticable, due to the close range"

On the other hand, use of the maneuvering board is complicated enough for some to have suggested that an automated system would be much better:

The U.S. Navy currently bases the majority of our contact management decisions around a time and manning intensive paper-based Maneuvering Board (MOBOARD) process. The use of Maneuvering Boards is a perishable skill that has a steep learning curve. In order to overcome inherent human error, it is not uncommon to have up to four people simultaneously involved in solving just one maneuvering problem. Additional manning requirements are involved on many Naval Ships in order to accurately convey the information to the Officer of the Deck (OOD) and/or the Commanding Officer. When given situations where there exist multiple contacts, the current system is quickly overwhelmed and may not provide Commanding Officers and OODs a complete and accurate picture in a timely manner.

The purpose of this research is to implement a stand-alone system that will provide timely and accurate contact information for U.S. Navy Commanding Officers, OODs, and CIC watch teams. By creating a reliable, automated system in a format that is familiar to all Surface Warfare Officers we will provide the Navy with a valuable decision-making tool, while increasing ease of data exchange and reducing current redundancies and manning inefficient practices.

You can judge for yourself whether the MoBoard is all that complicated by reviewing NVPUB 217, the Maneuvering Board Manual, a pdf document you can download for free by going to gCaptain here and in the column titled "Publications" selecting "Maneuvering Board Manual -Pub 217." In fact, gCaptain points to a number of free (and some pay for) nautical tools. Many of them are actually available from the National Geospatial Intelligence Agency website.

Not that the MoBoard solves all problems. As Captain Wayne Hughes explains, he had to work out some additional formulae for maneuvering:

MIKE GARRAMBONE: You talk about maneuver as a major planning process that you have to think about well in advance. It appears you were concentrating on the dynamics of movement you encountered at sea?
WAYNE HUGHES: Yes. After my tour at the Naval Academy, I was the Operations Officer of another destroyer that operated with a hunter/killer group. There were lots of times when you would go after a submarine in what was called a search attack unit with a couple of ships to try and find and destroy an exercise submarine. After simulating our attack, we would have to rejoin and take our station. If you come back and take station from “ahead,” then you may have to do a turn that is approximately a hundred and eighty degrees. Well, imagine the time it takes to turn a ship. It takes about two and one-half minutes. During the turn, the movement of the rest of the formation is substantial and so is your own transfer, which is the off-access (axis?)movement, and it can be substantial too. It is as big as a turning circle of the destroyer. The “maneuvering board” we used doesn’t solve that problem. The maneuvering board tells you what course and speed to take when you’re going directly into the station without accounting for advance and transfer.
MIKE GARRAMBONE: What did you do in these special cases?
WAYNE HUGHES: I developed a little algorithm I called the turning ellipse. It was all geometric, no mathematics at all. But it worked like a charm and I taught everybody in my wardroom, then wrote it up and had it published in one of the tactical pubs. When I got here to the Naval Postgraduate School years later I decided maybe I ought to see what the mathematical formula really was. It turned out that I was describing a mathematical cycloid. Its proper name would’ve been the tactical cycloid, but that didn’t have any buzz to it.

So, back to the earlier questions...why did the Navigator disagree with CIC? If you turn to the second example in Pub 217, you will find a method for determining another ship's course and speed using the MoBoard. You take three bearings and ranges on the other ship at specific time intervals and plot them on the board:

EXAMPLE 2 COURSE AND SPEED OF OTHER SHIP
Situation: Own ship R is on course 150°, speed 18 knots. Ship M is observed as follows:
Time Bearing Range Relative Position
1100 255° 20,000 M1
1107 260° 15,700 M2
1114 270° 11,200 M3

Required:
(1) Course and speed of M.

Solution:
(1) Plot M1, M2, M3, and R. Draw the direction of relative movement line (RML) from M1 through M3. With the distance M1 M3 and the interval of time between M1 and M3, find the relative speed (SRM) by using the TDS scale: 21 knots. Draw the reference ship vector er corresponding to the course and speed of R. Through r draw vector rm parallel to and in the direction of M1 M3 with a length equivalent to the SRM of 21 knots. The third side of the triangle, em, is the velocity vector of the ship M: 099°, 27 knots.

Answer:
(1) Course 099°, speed 27 knots.

That's a classic MoBoard solution. Now, in the case of "Skunk A," the wise old Navigator had a a simpler approach. If you are thinking about relative motion of two objects headed at each other on reciprocal courses (340 and 160 being reciprocal or 180 degrees different) then the speed at which they are closing should be the sum of their speeds, that is, the speed of Skunk A (10 knots as reported by CIC) and the speed of the destroyer (known to be 10 knots) would yield a "closing rate" of 20 knots (10+10=20) (again, like cars on the road- if you are driving 70 mph and on-coming cars are at the same speed, the closing rate is 140 mph, which is one reason head on wrecks at highway speeds are so deadly).

But CIC was reporting a closing rate of only 10 knots -meaning that one of the objects in the picture had no speed. Since the Navigator knew his ship was moving, the unknown object had to be stopped or "dead in the water." Sure enough, the ship's radar had picked up a drifting coconut tree log and CIC had made a simple MoBoard mistake. All motion on the maneuvering board has to be relative to some known object. Generally, it's relative to our own ship.

As to why Admiral Spruance carried around a maneuvering board? I suppose it's just one of those mysteries. Unless, during his earlier career he had discovered that it was always a good idea to have one on hand...and became a matter of habit.

It should also be noted that the maneuvering board does not require radar, as some sources seem to imply. Visual observations can be plotted, too. Tools needed might include a compass, maybe a sextant, a watch or chronometer, and a stadimeter.

Other MoBoard problems might include wind conversion:

By the mid-20th century, generations of U.S. Navy cadets had learned to compute True Wind using the equations derived by Bowditch. "Wind Problems," as they were called, could be solved graphically using the familiar Maneuvering Board. In addition, a slide rule instrument called the "wind computer" became popular with navigators and aerographers for solving wind problems. Use of the Maneuvering Board and the Wind Computer became essential to mission planning.

Getting the wind exactly right across the flight deck for helicopter operations is one of the challenges faced by SWOs in the past using the MoBoard. Much cursing generally ensued.

Then there was the Battenberg Course Indicator.

There. Would you like some more mud thrown on the subject? Check out Pub 217 and Pub 1310 for more fun with the MoBoard.

And, if any of you happens to discover the person who first set up the maneuvering board as we know it today, please let me know.

UPDATE: More on maneuvering board here (pdf version of Chapter 11 of Operations Specialist 2 (NAVEDTRA 10106) and Operations Specialist 3 (NAVEDTRA 10105)). And an electronic MoBoard downloadable here, though you should always check for viruses and things.

Friday Reading

Coalition attack on Talibanis in North Waziristan reported by Matt Dupee at The Long War Journal.

Iran in Central America reported by The Jawa Report here. Let's see, where's that copy of the Monroe Doctrine? I had it here someplace...

CDR Salamander: Fullbore Friday with a tale of a German cruiser.

George Smiley has Playstations at war.

Pinch has pictures of an antique aircraft.

Charlie at Op-For does Dr. Seuss as you may not remember him.

Attila notices a trend in Ivy League deans.

UPDATE: Steeljaw Scribe goes heavy with The Next Nuclear Strategy for a New Administration and here.

Democratic Party Primary Follies: "A Modest Proposal"

Now, I wonder who thought these people were ready for prime time? from Clarice Feldman at American Thinker: A Modest Proposal some free advice.

Jimmy Carter's name is invoked.

NC Coastal Ferry bomb threat...

A bomb threat but no bomb found, as reported here:

A bomb threat found on a Knotts Island ferry early today halted service temporarily while bomb experts from Virginia Beach searched and cleared both vessels.

An employee found the bomb threat at 5:30 a.m. on the vessel Gov. Hunt written on what appeared to be piece of legal pad paper, said Randall Edwards, spokesman for Currituck County. The vessel Ocracoke was also cleared.

“No evidence of any type of bomb or bomb-making materials was found on either vessel,” Edwards said.

More on NC ferry system here.

On the Democratic primaries

Rush Limbaugh nails it:

"Could any group outside the funny farm come up with a plan as incompetent as this so-called Democrat primary race? These are the same people that want to manage your health care, run the oil companies and retail businesses!"

Weekly Piracy Reports

The ICC Commercial Crime Services Weekly Piracy Report (to 10 March 08), with the following highlights:

09.03.2008: 1045 LT: 18:03.7N – 119:55.44E, Off Luzon, Philippines. A tanker was passing a group of 15 fishing vessels. When about 1.5 nm off, three boats left the group and approached the tanker at high speed. One boat came within 10 meters of the tanker. Master took evasive manoeuvres, raised alarm, whistle sounded and crew mustered. After 15 minutes, the boats aborted the attempted attack.
***
04.03.2008:0610 LT: 03:17.2N – 124:18.4E: Indonesia.
A bulk carrier underway was approached from a distance of 3 – 4 nautical miles by about 15 – 20 speed boats at speeds of 30 - 40 knots from all directions. Some came as close as 5 meters from the vessels’ stern. Vessel raised alarm, increased speed, crew mustered, manoeuvred in a zigzag course and enforced anti piracy measures. Master broadcast a security message on VHF Ch 16 and contacted the piracy-reporting centre. Seeing the crew vigilance, the speedboats moved away and regrouped near a fishing trawler in the vicinity. Vessel continued to her port of destination.

Both instances might have been fishermen trying to protect their nets...

ONI Worldwide Threats to Shipping Report (to 5 Mar 08) is here. Highlights:

1. SRI LANKA: Trawler with suspected LTTE links seized 02 Mar 08, 150NM northeast Mullaitivu coast. The Foreign Ministry has begun an extensive probe into the seizing of a vessel within Sri Lankan waters and carrying illegal immigrants and the possibility of LTTE involvement in what appears to be a human smuggling operation via the Indian Ocean. The Navy rescued 71 Myammar and Bangladeshi survivors drifting in a large wooden trawler which reportedly departed from Cox’s Baza, Bangladesh on 09 Feb 08. Investigations are currently being conducted to find out whether there are any LTTE links with this group as they are also
believed to be engaged in human smuggling. The vessel became disabled after developing engine problems. There were originally 91 people on the vessel, however 20 died from starvation, and the bodies were thrown overboard (LM: dailymirror.lk).
.
2. INDIA: Suspected Sri Lankan Tamils arrested on charges of constructing boat for LTTE, vessel seized 03 Mar 08, Tamil Nadu. Two Sri Lankan Tamils were arrested in a joint operation by the Tamil Nadu and Kerala police for making a large boat allegedly for the LTTE, which reportedly has now crippled the rebels’ bid to stealthily make sea-worthy vessels in India. According to confessions the two men have made to the authorities, one received money from the Tigers through hawala transfer to make the vessel at a boatyard at Munambam in Vypeen Island near Kochi. An advance of 1.2 million Indian Rupees (Rs) was paid to the boat builders,
saying it would be used for fishing. Much of the vessel was ready when suspicion led to the authorities mounting a watch on one of the apprehended suspects. The ship, approximately 70-ft long, would have eventually cost the LTTE Rs.4.2 million, according to sources. Both men have been charged under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act for assisting the LTTE, which is outlawed in India, and the Indian Penal Code (LM: thaindian.com, The Hindu, tothecenter.com).
***
4. WORLD FOOD PROGRAM ESCORT: The Danish Navy has taken over the task of
escorting UNWFP ships to Somalia per 06 Feb 08 reporting. The Danish took over from its French counterpart which has been escorting WFP ships from Mombasa to Somalia following increased cases of piracy along the coast of the Horn of Africa country. Denmark has agreed to resume escorting duties for the next two months (LM: US News Service, Daily Nation). (NB E1 - the Dutch are considering whether they will take over this escort duty next)
***
3. GULF OF ADEN: Vessel reported suspicious approach 05 Mar 08 at 0824 local
time/0524 UTC while underway in position 13:46.5N-049:24.5E, approximately 40NM off the coast of Yemen. The vessel was approached on its starboard side by four open skiffs, doing 17 and 18.5 kts. One skiff crossed the vessel’s bow at a distance of about five cables then kept the port side of the vessel. The next skiff tried to challenge the vessel with 18.5 kts in a course that was possibly intended to get alongside the vessel, finally turning to port and passing vessel’s stern at a distance of less than two cables. The third skiff passed the stern at a distance of about 3-4 cables. The fourth skiff tried to approach the vessel’s bow but the vessel carried out evasive maneuvers while increasing its speed, it crossed the bow at a distance of about two cables. After the vessel had passed the skiffs and it was clear that the skiffs could not get any closer, they soon reduced their speed and moved away. All the skiffs were Arabian open style boats, length about 8 to 10 or 12 meters with a sharp bow, and were probably wooden. They all had outboard engines. Two skiffs were mainly white, one with an orange hull, which had at least two engines,
and one in multiple colors. Each craft had at least three persons, all in uniform-like clothed (Operator, IMB).
***
I. RED SEA:
.
1. RED SEA: Tug reported suspicious approach 05 Mar 08, while underway in position 15:08N-042:14E, 40NM west of Al Hudaydah, Yemen. The suspicious craft traveling at a speed of 27kts, came from Jabal Zubayr Island towards the tug towing a crane barge. The suspicious craft had seven persons on board, some with camouflage suits and automatic weapons in their hands, possibly Kalashnikov and AK 47’s. They approached at a distance of 15 meters on the starboard side of the tug. They waved at the crew and called the vessel by its name many times on VHF ch. 16. The tug’s master visually indicated from the wheelhouse that he was aware of the speedboat’s presence but did not respond on VHF. The suspicious craft moved away and went back towards the direction of the island. The incident lastedapproximately five minutes (Operator, IMB).
***
1. PAPUA NEW GUINEA: Yacht (RAPTOR) boarded 29 Jan 08 in the early morning,
Wewak port, per 03 Mar 08 reporting. The crew of four heard unknown voices and discovered that they were boarded from both sides of the vessel by three bandits, armed with a gun, machete and a small axe. The crewmembers tried to regroup inside an area with a screen door but the bandits kicked the door open, however while doing so, one of the bandits hit the smoke alarm and set it off, distracting the bandits. Two of the crewmembers ran to the galley to search for a defensive weapon. Another crewmember was commanded to silence the smoke alarm at gunpoint. It was later discovered that this was a homemade gun, only good at close range. The
gunman went towards the galley so that he can watch all the crewmembers at once. While distracted, one of the crewmembers tackled the gunman. The crewmembers managed to throw the bandits down the steps on the transom. A crewmember radioed for help, but received no response, probably due to it being a small port. After the scuffle, the crewmembers had the gun in their possession and chased the bandits. They had two canoes but they spotted the bandits swimming to shore instead. The crewmembers caught one bandit and scared him with a spear
gun and tied him up on the swim platform. Two crewmembers went to the local yacht club for assistance. The police were contacted and they took custody of the captive (Operator: Noonsite.com).

Back to the basics: "A Primer on Oil Prices"

Pretty good primer, too, at A Primer on Oil Prices:

Wonder why gasoline costs more? In order to fulfill various air pollution reduction plans, gasoline and diesel must be refined into some 17 different formulations. With three grades of gasoline, that means that refiners must produce some 45 separate blends. That’s expensive and the cost is, of course, passed along to consumers. Since demand outstrips production capacity, weekly gasoline imports more than doubled between 1992 and 2004.

The mandate to include the gasoline additive, ethanol, largely made from an ever-increasing amount of the nation’s corn production, further adds to pain at the pump. The irony here is that it drives up the cost of food while reducing the mileage available from a gallon of gasoline with this additive. As a result, oil refiners have cancelled an estimated 40 percent of planned expansions, reducing potential new output from 1.6 million barrels per day to less than 1 million barrels daily.

The hard math of a growing U.S. population, plus the fact that petroleum accounts for about 40 percent of U.S. energy supply, two thirds of which must be imported, means that Americans are caught in a government designed energy vice. American transportation runs on oil. It accounts for about 28 percent of U.S. energy use.

As America’s infrastructure of roads and bridges ages, a two-year study by the National Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue Study Commission recently urged Congress to raise the tax on gasoline by as much as 40 cents more per gallon.

At the same time, the latest energy bill has increased Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards to require vehicles to get 35 miles per gallon by the year 2020. Analysts project an increase in the cost of buying a new car between $900 and $10,000 depending on which expert is consulted. The only way to achieve this is to drastically reduce the weight of a car, thus increasing the potential for a lethal accident and more dead Americans on the highway.

Make sure you send a "thank you" note to your elected representatives. You might also mention that you really appreciate the increase in food prices caused by the ethanol mandate.

BBC Says: " No vessel is safe from modern pirates"

Which, while probably not true, is an eye-catching headline. Article pointing out that pirates still roam some sea lanes here:

It is estimated that seaborne piracy amounts to worldwide losses of between $13bn and $16bn a year.

Piracy peaked in 2003 with 445 attacks around the world and since then, they have more or less steadily come down.

In 2006, there were 239 attacks. Last year, the number increased slightly to 249.

Although attacks have decreased from the early 1990s, Rupert Herbert-Burns, a maritime security expert at Lloyd's Intelligence Unit, says piracy is still a worrying problem.

"Attacks rose by 14% towards the end of last year, largely due to attacks off the Horn of Africa, specifically in Somali waters or in the territorial waters off Somalia," he said.

I would note a slight decrease in Somali piracy since France and the Netherlands started escorting UN relief shipping and coalition forces began hanging around the area.

The Time is Right for Revolution

CDR Salamander's Maritime Strategy Monday: the Revolt of the Commanders ought to stir up discussion - though I am not sure how many "flag bound" O-6s are reading blogs critical of the group think that has put us where we are. I do know that when on exercises it was common to acknowledge that some issues were "too hard" or "too time consuming" to let them dominate the exercise, though in real life one will not be able to "assume away" such problems.

In my view, during my last days being involved with such matters, we were not training senior officers in how to fight and how hard that fighting is against a determined enemy who has had time to build forces designed to exploit your well-known weaknesses.

So when CDR S calls for a "commander's revolt" I understand his frustration. And note that John Boyd paid for his revolution heavily while lesser men gained from his insight. The would-be revolutionaries need to understand the risks.

These commanders need some political help from someone who understands that we shouldn't have billion dollar ships doing missions poorly that could be done better by having many more mission-designed ships. To use a famous Navy phrase, "any ship can be a mine sweeper once." Real minesweepers can be reused after they have swept a channel- multi-billion dollar "capital ships" cannot.

Given the promise of "network centric warfare," merely connecting a few huge platforms under-utilizes the potential for linking many small ships for greater tactical flexibility. Or, as Captain Wayne Hughes writes in Fleet Tactics and Coastal Combat (p.286):

We have seen that the number of ships is the most valuable attribute that a fleet can have. We also saw that many small ships offer more tactical flexibility... The U.S. Navy is composed of large, highly capable ships, many of which have area defense capability. It was for defense more than for offense that the American navy sacrificed numbers for quality.*

The asterisk is to his footnote:

Another reason is because of the economies of scale. A large ship with three times the displacement of a small one will have three or more times the payload and probably only cost twice as much. Sometimes the ship must be big to carry and operate its payload, modern carrier aircraft illustrate. A large ship is also more comfortable for long cruises in many kinds of weather.

Hughes needs to be listened to. Sometimes the economies of scale and crew comfort need to be weighed against other factors, like winning wars and not being afraid to send your expensive ships into harm's way.

Someone needs to stand up and tell Congress that nuclear power is not the answer for all of our ships...("That Emperor has no clothes" ). The idea of a nuclear powered LCS (or "Street Fighter") is laughable. I can imagine the small area of the world's oceans where such expensive ships will be allowed to operate least some non-state agency like Hezzbollah fire a "rocket in a box" and sink a nuclear ship off some coast while the environmentalists raise the flag of defeat so that some spiny sea plankton doesn't suffer the possibility of radiation danger. Bring on the revolt!

Speaking of littoral nations and nuclear powered ships, Chap linked to this:

THE region is at a serious risk of a major catastrophe due to military nuclear-powered and armed ships and submarines entering Gulf waters, an expert warned yesterday.The vessels "come and go as they please" with no one to monitor them, said Regional Organisation for the Protection of the Marine Environment executive secretary Dr Abdulrehman Al Awadhi.

"If there is a radiation leak in any of these vessels, it would spell disaster for the area," Dr Al Awadhi told the GDN.

"When the ship is in port or even in the waters off port, by the time anything could be done, it would be too late."

The Gulf in question is the Arabian/Persian Gulf. And so it begins...

UPDATE: Galrahn sees "motherships".

UPDATE2: Re nuclear power for DDGs.

Monday Reading

Fred Fry has Maritime Monday 101 up at gCaptain with a look at Saga Forest Carriers and lots more for the nautically inclined.

Xformed has Monday Maritime Matters 36 up with a look at Admiral Paul Foster and the ship that bore his name.

The trouble down South American way

The Wall Street Journal's The FARC Files is a very good piece on the mischief Hugo Chavez and his pals are up to - financed by oil and drug money:

Colombia's precision air strike 10 days ago, on a guerrilla camp across the border in Ecuador, killed rebel leader Raúl Reyes. That was big. But the capture of his computer may turn out to be a far more important development in Colombia's struggle to preserve its democracy.

Reyes was the No. 2 leader of the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, or FARC, which has been at war with the Colombian government for more than four decades. His violent demise is a fitting end to a life devoted to masterminding atrocities against civilians. But the computer records expose new details of the terrorist strategy to bring down the government of Colombian President Álvaro Uribe, including a far greater degree of collaboration between the FARC and four Latin heads of government than had been previously known. In addition to Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez, they are President Rafael Correa of Ecuador, Nicaragua's President Daniel Ortega and Bolivian President Evo Morales.
***
Sure enough, when the Colombian national police retrieved Reyes's body from Ecuador, it also brought back several computers from the camp. Documents on those laptops show that Mr. Chávez and Reyes were not only ideological comrades, but also business partners and political allies in the effort to wrest power from Mr. Uribe.

The tactical discussions found in the documents are hair-raising enough. They show that the FARC busies itself with securing arms and explosives, selling cocaine, and otherwise financing its terrorism operations through crime. In a memo last month, for example, a rebel leader discussed the FARC's efforts to secure 50 kilos of uranium, which it hoped to sell to generate income. In the same note, there is a reference to "a man who supplies me material for the explosive we are preparing, his name is Belisario and he lives in Bogotá . . ."

Though it is far from clear, Colombian national police speculated from this that a dirty bomb could be in the making. An April 2007 letter to the FARC secretariat lays out the terrorists' effort to acquire missiles from Lebanon. When Viktor Bout, allegedly one of the world's most notorious arms traffickers, was arrested in Thailand on Thursday, the Spanish-language press reported that he was located thanks to the Reyes computer files.

The maneuvers of thugs seeking power are no surprise. The more significant revelation is the relationship between the FARC and Mr. Chávez, Mr. Correa, Mr. Morales and Mr. Ortega. All four, it turns out, support FARC violence and treachery against Mr. Uribe.

According to the documents, Mr. Chávez's friendship with the FARC dates back at least as far as 1992, when he was in jail for an attempted coup d'etat in Venezuela and the FARC sent him $150,000. Now he is returning the favor, by financing the terrorist group with perhaps as much as $300 million. But money is the least important of the Chávez gifts. He is also using his presidential credentials on behalf of the FARC.

UPDATE: See Betsy Newmark's post on The "New Israel" of South America.

Sunday Ship History: Behold the Barrage Balloon!

Take a look at the picture above showing the beach head at the Normandy landings. What do you see? Ships, men, tanks? What about those balloon things above the ships and the beach? Those are barrage balloons and they provide a form of antiaircraft protection to the forces on the beach.

These balloons saw action not just on D-Day, but somewhere- every day during the war -a barrage balloon was being used to defend some vital component of the war machine, from vital harbors, to ship yards, to merchant ships steaming in convoys carrying vital supplies to England, to LSTs landing on the beach heads of the Pacific.


What do we remember about them?

Barrage balloons came into existence during the later stages of World War I, when the British were looking for assistance in reducing the German bombing threat. Steel cables suspended from balloons proved effective in imposing flight limitations on German bombers - limiting altitudes at which they could fly over Britain and closing off certain approaches. As noted in "Barrage Balloons for Low-Level Air Defense" by Major Franklin J. Hillson, USAF, the balloon arrays served multiple purposes:

The barrage balloon was simply a bag of lighter-than-air gas attached to a steel cable anchored to the ground. The balloon could be raised or lowered to the desired altitude by means of a winch. Its purpose was ingenuous: to deny low-level airspace to enemy aircraft. This simple mission provided three major benefits: (1) it forced aircraft to higher altitudes, thereby decreasing surprise and bombing accuracy; (2) it enhanced ground-based air defenses and the ability of fighters to acquire targets,since intruding aircraft were limited in altitudes and direction: and (3) the cable presented a definite mental and material hazard to pilots. Many people think that a barrage balloon system was designed to snare aircraft like a spider web capturing unwary flies. Not so. Any airplanes caught in these aerial nets were a bonus; the real objective of the balloons was to deny low-altitude flight to the enemy. Mindful of these capabilities, the British saw the barrage balloon as a viable means to counter low-level attackers during the world wars.

With the advent of World War II, thousands of barrage balloons appeared in the skies of England and the United States began to develop barrage balloon expertise out of concern about possible air attacks on important assets, including the Panama Canal. See here:

A fourth air defense element, the barrage balloon, received considerable attention but only scant development before the United States entered the war- The Air Corps began work on a barrage balloon in 1938, but more active preparations did not get under way until the beginning of 1941, after reports during the summer and fall of 1940 had indicated the effectiveness of balloons in Great Britain and Germany in interfering with low-level bombardment. After the Air Corps had developed a large and relatively high-altitude-type balloon, the Chief of Staff decided to transfer most barrage balloon activity to the Coast Artillery Corps. When the Coast Artillery took over at the beginning of June 1941, the Army had three barrage balloon companies and just three balloons. But it had tentatively decided to acquire 3,000 more balloons, and plans evolved during the summer and fall of 1941 to expand the barrage balloon force to be used for continental defense purposes alone to eighty-five batteries, each flying thirty-five balloons.54 By 1 November 1941, five battalions of three batteries each were being organized and trained at the Barrage Balloon Training Center at Camp Davis, North Carolina. The Army sent three of these battalions to bolster the air defenses of the west coast soon after the outbreak of war. It also decided to replace the Air Corps type of balloon with the smaller British balloon which, although designed to fly at lower levels, was easier to handle, less expensive to manufacture and operate, and readily procurable.

As one part of the new antiaircraft project approved in the spring of 1942, a maximum of forty balloon battalions of prewar strength for continental defense was to be provided. The number actually employed for this purpose during the war was a little more than one-tenth of this strength, and in the United States balloon battalions were used only at a few west coast locations and at the Sault Ste. Marie Canal.55

Except that the Marines were also working with barrage balloons. And it also ignores the use of barrage balloons in amphibious warfare operations - including D-Day (about which more later).


Merchant ships carried the balloons (and occasionally flew "barrage kites" for the same effect - limiting enemy aircraft attacks).

Little can be found on the web about the Marines use of barrage balloons except for some photographs of Marines wrestling with balloons in training and some side comments about the use of barrage balloons during some Pacific island landings as set out here:

The Coast Guard-manned USS LST-207 ...loaded Marine Corps supplies and departed on 4 November and reached Purvata Island, Bougainville on 6 November 1944..

...After three more resupply echelons had been sent to Bougainville from Guadalcanal in which LST-207 participated, she departed on the 11th of February, 1944, for the invasion of the Green Islands. Stopping at Ondonga Island, New Georgia Islands, she loaded personnel and cargo of the 37th Special Battalion, Navy CBs while enemy planes were bombing an airstrip half a mile away and departed with 250 Navy CBs in convoy for the Green Islands invasion. At 0849 on the 15th she passed into Nissan Island Lagoon and put bulldozers ashore for roadwork. At 0650, two bombers were observed attacking one of the screening destroyers on the 207's port bow. Two near misses were observed. After dropping bombs one of the planes circled and headed toward the convoy and the 207 opened fire with no perceivable damage. Again at 0705 a plane approached astern three miles distant at 12,000 feet and when at 3,000 feet and abeam the LST opened fire. The plane dropped two small bombs about 200 yards out and forward of the vessel and then veered up and away beyond range. Barrage balloons flown at 2,000 feet during the attack and were believed to have caused the bombs to fall too far to starboard, thus missing the vessel.

The crew of one LST saved, in part, by a balloon.

Part of the reason for limited Marine history may lie with this:

Six barrage balloon squadrons were activated starting in October 1941 to play a role in the defensive responsibilities of te FMF. During 1942 two squadrons were dispatched to Samoa, one to Tulugi (served without balloons there) and three squadron by December were located at Noumea...A Marine barrage balloon group headquarters was organized in January 1943 to control the squadrons located there...By December 1943 all six squadrons were deactivated...It had been decided in June 1943 that the Army would relieve the Marines of barrage balloon responsibilities.

As an antiaircraft tool, the balloons sometimes seemed a mixed blessing, as set out here:

Barrage balloons for LSTs, which had been used in the Sicilian landings that summer, were introduced to the Pacific fleet by the second echelon. This device snared one Nip plane in early November and proved baffling to the pilots; but the balloons were finally discarded in 1944 because they gave away a task force's position to enemy search planes.

As you might gather, the use of barrage balloons was important to the invasions of Sicily and Italy.

But the biggest use was probably during the Normandy invasion on D-Day, June 6, 1944. As can be seen in nearby photos, every LCI (Landing Craft Infantry) toted along its own barrage balloon, as did some larger vessels. There were some concerns with the ship mounted balloons:

Barrage balloons actually caused some serious concern at the Normandy landings, especially in the early hours. Several batteries of long-range
German artillery could see these large balloons tethered above ships from several miles inland and were able to bombard those ships that they could not see with a fair amount of accuracy. Many Navy crews cut their balloons loose when it became apparent that the Luftwaffe was not going to be a big factor that day, but the artillery was.

Among the first men on the beach were members of the Army's 320th Barrage Balloon Brigade (VLA)(Colored):

The 320th Barrage Balloon Bn. was unique at Normandy for two reasons. First, it was the first barrage balloon unit in France and second, it was the first black unit in the segregated American Army to come ashore on D-Day.

The VLA in the 320th designation stood for "very low altitude." These units used smaller barrage balloons that could easily be moved by a few men and transported across the channel on landing craft. A standard balloon crew was normally four men, but trained personnel were in short supply and the 320th reduced the crews to three men to get as many balloons in the air as possible.

The barrage balloon concept was simple, lighter-than-air balloons were tethered over an area that the Army wished to protect from air attack. The balloons were flown at irregular intervals and altitudes. If an enemy plane attempted to fly into the area, it ran the risk of striking one of the wire cables holding the balloons. This could be enough to slice off a wing or the cable could become entangled in the propeller. It was a passive form of defense which forced the enemy aircraft to fly above the balloons where it would be harder to hit the target. Many of the ships taking part in the channel crossing flew barrage balloons to prevent low level attacks.

The men of the 320th were not second rate soldiers. They were highly trained and took pride in their job. When they were told they were going to land in France to protect the invasion beaches, they quickly realized that the standard VLA balloon winch was too heavy and cumbersome to lug ashore from a landing craft. The M-1 US Army winch had a gasoline motor and weighed 1,000 pounds. The British Mark VII weighed almost 400 pounds. They developed an expedient by adding two handles to a Signal Corps RL-31 Winder and putting the balloon wire on the DR-4 drum. This new winch weighed only 50 pounds and could easily be carried ashore by one man.

In addition to tying up enemy aircraft assisting in preventing the aerial mining of waterways, the English barrage balloons also were responsible for taking out V-1 rocket bombs (early cruise missiles), perhaps as many as 100.

With the end of WWII, the barrage balloon seems to have faded away, having served well in two wars.

In 1989, however, barrage balloons were suggested as a possible solution to low flying aircraft threats:

Modern technology allows aircraft to fly high and fast, but it also permits them to fly at very low altitudes--perhaps their most advantageous capability. Radar, antiaircraft artillery (AAA), and particularly SAMs make today's air defenses extremely formidable, but these systems are vulnerable to ultra-low-level attack by enemy aircraft. Because SAMs and other antiaircraft systems are deadly to high-flying aircraft, both NATO and the Warsaw Pact emphasize low-level attacks. This tactic helps negate the effect of SAMS, decreases enemy response time, and enhances the element of surprise.

To counter that surprise there might be a need for "a wonderfully simple weapon--the barrage balloon."

Give a salute to the brave men and women who wrangled balloons at time of war!

Maritime Security: Syria on watchlist

Ships making port calls in Syria will get extra scrutiny, as reported here:

Syria was placed on a so-called "Port Security Advisory List" amid "concerns about the connections between Syria and international terrorist organizations," the State Department's deputy spokesman Tom Casey told reporters.

The move allows the Coast Guard "to impose some additional port security measures to ships traveling to or arriving in US ports that have previously been either departing from Syria or have called on Syrian ports," he said.

Casey added he understood the measures would affect any ship that has visited Syria during its last five ports of call...
***
The development marked yet another turn for the worse in a relationship that clearly started to sour again at the end of January when Casey said it was time for Syria to stop its alleged abuses of human rights and support for terrorism.

Washington had long complained of Syria's support for opponents of the Middle East peace talks, such as the radical Hamas movement in the Palestinian territories and the pro-Iranian Shiite Muslim group Hezbollah in Lebanon.
***
A US Navy official said Wednesday that the warships USS Ross and the USS Philippine Sea have relieved the USS Cole to take up positions in the eastern Mediterranean off Lebanon, which is just south of Syria's own coastline.

"It's a sign of our commitment to stability in the region," said Bryan Whitman, a Pentagon spokesman.

The Cole was deployed to waters off Lebanon to signal US concern over a protracted political crisis in Lebanon.

I expect wacky Bush haters to see a conspiracy to use trouble with Syria as a stepping stone to Mr. Bush declaring himself "president for life."