« Car violence | Main | Now this is the media I'm accustomed to! »
A simple solution to piracy
Reader Scott Sterling emails what seems to be a simple, easy, and cheap solution to piracy. I would just add that I doubt an AK is a 300-400 yard weapon in Somalian hands. Videos I've seen of their land fighting suggests their firing stance is: hold gun sideways, or overhead, dance around and pull trigger while taunting foes. A good fellow with a .50 would (or two teams, for each side) would take them apart in complete safety. (An ad in Soldier of Fortune would produce more volunteers than are needed, too). Here's his idea:
From all accounts, small groups of pirates are successfully attacking and hijacking ships in the waters within 100 miles of the Somali coast. Many fancy ideas have been suggested to solve this problem. There is one answer that could be used to great effect that needs consideration: the use of 2-man teams with .50 cal rifles. This plan would not put any weapons on ships in any ports.
Since the area where ships are threatened is limited, the rifle teams could board ships at each end of the major sea-lane that passes along the Somali coast. When a ship is about to enter the lane a team
would board, when the boat gets safely to the other end of the lane the team would disembark. A midsize ship stationed at each end on the sea-lane would act as home base for the rifle teams. These ships could be naval vessels or civilian ships that only dock at ports friendly to the shipping protection program. All weapons would stay on the base ships after the cargo ships leave the danger zone,
therefore no weapons would be aboard ships entering ports that prohibit weapons.
The U.S. Marines and Army have an inventory of M82 and M107 .50 Cal rifles that would be ideal for this use. The rifles are also available commercially. The key to why this system would work is the
range of these rifles and their anti-materiel capability. With an effective range over 1500 meters and the ability to disable the engines of speedboats, the rifle teams could engage and disable the
speedboats long before they enter the AK-47 range of 300-400 meters. Also, the rifle teams would be attacking a large target (speed boat) from a relatively stable platform (large ship) and the pirates would have to make almost impossible shots at a tiny target (the rifleman), at long range, from a boat bouncing in the waves.
The rifle teams could also use armor and shields, to minimize the chance of any harm to them. Due to the lopsided nature of the target dynamic, there is no way for the pirates to "escalate" this situation. Even if they had exactly the same rifles as the rifle teams, the shots they would have to make are almost impossible, before the speedboat is disabled and the ship sails out of range. The .50 cal cartridge can penetrate over 1 inch of armor plate, so attempts to armor the speedboats would not work. There is no other weapons system available to anyone that could change this no matter how much money the pirates have.
Once the pirate boat is disabled, the rifle team would radio a navy ship in the area to come pick up the pirates and return them to shore, without their boat and weapons. Once a few pirate boats are
left floating offshore and the pirate business stops being profitable, pirates will be forced to move on to other endeavors. Once they know the ships have effective defenses, only a percentage of ships will need to carry rifle teams in the future, the possibility a team is aboard will provide protection for all ships.
Rotating Rifle teams armed with M82 or M107 Rifles on ships as they pass through the danger areas would provide protection and deterrence effectively stopping pirate attacks at sea.
UPDATE:(THese are Dave Hardy thoughts) the pirates' ability to armor is going to be quite limited. I think .50 AP can go thru 3/4" of steel armor, so figure 1" is minimal protection. (And the steel available may not be of this grade). Steel weighs, if I remember, 440 lb per cubic foot. So it takes that to provide 12 square feet of 1" thick. Probably need twice that to protect crew and engine (and that only on a straight-in run). That's adding nearly 900 lb to a small boat that has to chase down another, and still leaves much of the hull exposed to punctures that'd allow slow flooding. And they have to turn at some point if they're going to fire or board.
Ditto with mother ships pursuing. The whole purpose of the speed boats is to pursue a fleeing merchantman. Mother ships are, I gather, third world fishing trawlers, and unlikely to chase down a tanker. RPGs, or 20mms--the merchantmen are mostly HUGE vessels, and could shrug off hits.
And for close in work, a bit of experimentation should show what part of a stick of dynamite can go off near a merchantman hull without damage.... but with enough waterhammer effect to crush a speedboat's hull. Tie some to weights, and as soon as they pull alongside, light fuse and drop. Assuming that they aren't crushed as well, nor sucked into the propellers, wave good bye. For added fun, don't tell anyone. All the pirates will know is that their ships keep vanishing.
Comment posting is apt to be delayed since Somalia, etc., contain Soma, which is on the "hold the comment until I approve it" list. It's some sorta drug that spammers promote via blog comments.
112 Comments
From the weapons handling I've seen in pictures of the Somalis, a kid with a Marlin 22LR could take out a full boat load of pirates without having to reload the tubular magazine.
The pirates would just upgrade to Chinese QGJs or maybe 25mm or 30mm auto cannons. Cleaning out the pirate nests on the coasts and getting a working government back in Somalia is probably the only real long term solution.
They studied Liberian Infantry Tactics. It's not their fault.
The pirates would just upgrade to Chinese QGJs or maybe 25mm or 30mm auto cannons.From a speedboat? Seriously? And what, pray, would they do with those cannons? Aimed fire from a thrashing bow?
I think you've not thought it through.
I've thought of this exact plan myself (or forgot where I heard it) and wondered why it hasn't been implemented in dangerous areas. There are some problems with it.
There would be no deterrent effect protecting unarmed ships because the pirates would just approach their targets and break off at the first warning shot. For various practical reasons crews must give warning shots instead of just unleashing a torrent on the pirates.
There is some risk that ships that defend themselves might be sunk or damaged by the pirates to deter other ships from defending themselves. A couple of fifties would make it difficult for the pirates to sink a ship, but the pirates might think of a way. The pirates don't need to armor their entire boat. A single modest size armor plate might be enough to protect the engine, fuel, and crew, from the front, long enough to get within range to punish resisting ships by damaging or sinking them. The pirates might also be able to outfit their boats with small artillery if that becomes necessary.
The pirates would just upgrade to Chinese QGJs or maybe 25mm or 30mm auto cannons.
A 25mm cannon is the main gun on a 25 ton Bradley, and it's powerful enough to make the whole track rock gently as it fires. It's also pretty darn heavy, and the ammo is heavy and expensive too. The Army had trouble mounting it on 19 ton 8 wheel Stryker.
You could probably rear-mount a .50 cal, though that's obviously not terribly effective for raids. Even if you could mount it facing forwards and it didn't make your skiff capsize and the pilot wasn't bothered by the sound and the rain of hot brass, I'd be awfully surprised if you could hit anything. Usually when you do gunnery in trucks, you have two trucks: one is stopped and firing while the other advances. They just don't make great brakes for speedboats...
The pirates might also be able to outfit their boats with small artillery if that becomes necessary.
Their target would stand a greater chance of being hit by a stray meteor.
If the world really is powerless to stop piracy, why isn't it an individual initiative to defend yourself?
I'd like to see a cruise to the coast of Somalia, BYO gun and ammo. Troll up and down the coast for awhile until the pirates show up and have at 'em.
In the 19th Century, they used to shoot buffalo from trains. It was considered good sport at the time. Fifty years from now we might not be able to do it, but if they can't stop piracy, how are they gonna stop us?
How much you wanna bet that as soon as the first privately armed vessel that 'attacks' the pirates, all the navies of the world put their foot down and that will be that.
Some comments presume that the pirate would stick with small speedboats. I don't think they would. They would mount the auto-cannons on larger boats and use them to provide covering fire for speedboats. These guys are not stupid and have lots of small unit tactics and fire-fight experience.
The devil is in the target ID; you can't open up at max range. Until the pirates do something "piratical" they're fishermen, out for a cruise (in eel-infested waters). It is, nominally, a free ocean; they can relatively easily maintain masquerade until close enough to make a high-speed run-in. Pair up the boats, and one offers cover fire while the other makes a high-speed boarding run. Another couple of boats for decoys and target discrimination is out the window.
In short, any feasible RoE makes this plan unworkable by preventing long-range engagements. The pirates just need to get into close enough range to be able to dash the boarding team in and have the covering team be able to offer effective area fire from an AK or LMG (they don't have to be pinpoint marksman, just good enough to keep the rifle team's head's down).
Better way is just to make it more difficult for the pirates to board. Wonder how well mounting 6-foot plates at 45 degrees lean-out over the rail would be at preventing boarding. Paint the outer sides with something slick and make the edges sharp enough to cut through a line after a bit of chafing (as might be generated by someone using it to climb)? Hinge them to be able to be swung in for safety in port.
If you can prevent them from coming aboard, you prevent the piracy.
The pirates can load a skid full of explosives and sink a ship
Hitting a 500ft ship from a couple miles from a stopped boat might not be too hard. The pirates wouldn't have to hit every time. Armor piercing incendiary 50 cal might be scary to boat owners as well.The pirates might also be able to outfit their boats with small artillery if that becomes necessary.Their target would stand a greater chance of being hit by a stray meteor.
Actually I don't think the pirates will do such things to punish resisting ships anyway. I think a 50 would be effective and the pirates would just look for easier targets.
The pirates would probably attack the protection ships stationed at each end of the danger zone unless the ships were heavily armed. They may attack before the rifle team gets on board unless the protection ships are placed very far from Somalia. But then the farther out the attacks are, the easier it is for the navy to intercept before the pirates get home.
Arie:
The pirates really don't want to sink ships. A ship and crew held hostage means ransom. A ship and crew sent to Davy Jones' locker just ticks people off. Sinking ships is bad business for pirates, and they know it.
God bless!
All these little pirate skiffs are launched from "mother ships" more than 100 miles off shore. Position a submarine in the area to observe and detect. When a mother ship is found and confirmed ... sink it. It would be especially useful for this to occur when the raiding parties are out. When they come home to nothing, it would be a long way back to shore.
Again - how do you confirm a mother ship? They're fishing trawlers (and generally are actively fishing as well). And who supplies the sub and torpedo? Subs are lousy platforms to engage trawlers with; anyway.
The target vessels don't have to worry about destructive attacks, as noted; but the host ships for the defense teams do have to worry about it.
I'm as much for lethally discouraging the actual pirates as others - I just dont think the currently provided plans are a good idea. You can't till a pirate till he starts to act piratical, and he doesn't have to do that until he's within his own engagement range.
The pirates are businessmen. Since they fled the Italian cruise ship they recently tried to take over when the security guards started plinking back with pistols, I suspect incoming .50 BMG rounds would prove to be a fully adequate deterrent. As noted above, if the pirates fire back with anything that could sink a merchantman, they would quickly find this course of action to be counterproductive to the their objectives.
Alternatively, if the EU-zone surrender-monkey navies on-site would simply HOLD the pirates they catch rather than quickly sending them home, piracy would quickly become a less attractive line of work.
But ultimately, arming merchantmen or having military patrols in the sea lanes may not be what stops the Somali pirates. Yesterday's NYT suggests that good old shore-based Islamic Justice might eventually be enough to do the trick:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/09/world/africa/09pirate.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=somali%20pirates%20toyota&st=cse
Think volleyfire from RPG's by the Somalis.
While I agree with those who point out that you can't fire on the pirates until they show intent. I disagree that the Barrett .50 cals will be outgunned.
The yardages involved in covering these freighters are substantial. If the M107s are manned by teams in (or on) the parts of the bridge area overlooking the sides of the ship, than the accuracy disparity between AKs/RPGs on shakey platforms and the M107s on stable platforms many hundreds of yards away is huge. Especially when the M107 teams can present a very small to nearly invisible (and possibly armoured) target capable of covering most of the ship perimeter. And this is assuming the pirates even figure out exactly where the shooting is coming from - which is not necessarily true.
Don't forget the famous line from Black Hawk Down "the skinnies can't shoot for shit!" and a ex-special forces friend of mine pointed out that a long range shot with an AK is closer to "indirect fire" than a rifle - and just about as accurate. An RPG hit may be more of a threat, but apparantly these aren't very accurate either.
This same principle holds no matter what the pirates field in the way of armaments. Remember a hidden sniper has held huge forces at bay numerous times in the past.
What a bunch of freaking lawyers.
These are the high seas ... not a court room.
A skiff full of assholes with AKs is going to get engaged at maximum range and hopefully set ablaze, regardless of whether or not they meet your courtroom standard of "piratical behavior" ... and if the freighter captain is in a bad mood, rammed while disabled and the surviving pirates shot while they try to tread water.
This is why using submarines to sink motherships is a good idea ... you can't serve papers for an excessive force lawsuit unless you can prove what country's sub did the deed.
Oh yes, and if some Somali mother ship shows up with a 20mm cannon or 5" gun, they'll be pretty obvious from a fair distance away and a decision made then whether to engage or not. Also, they'll be uncommon and probably easily tracked by military forces.
It's exactly the same principle as civilian concealed carry! They don't always have to be used just because they're available. But without a CCW you don't even have the option.
My previous comment about CCW seems to have been quarentined, so here's the short version.
This is EXACTLY the same situation as civilian Concealed Carry (except think ships instead of civilians and Barret .50s instead of pistols). And the arguments against it fit the same mold as well.
Having a concealed carry weapon doesn't mean you must use it if it is certain to get you killed. However, there will be times when having it will be much better than not having it.
"Yesterday's NYT suggests that good old shore-based Islamic Justice might eventually be enough to do the trick:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/09/world/africa/09pirate.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=somali%20pirates%20toyota&st=cse
Posted by: zippypinhead at May 9, 2009 09:56 AM"
Ya right. Just like it stops growing heroin in Afganistan.
"...if some Somali mother ship shows up with a 20mm cannon or 5" gun, they'll be pretty obvious from a fair distance away and a decision made then whether to engage or not."
Well, if some Somali fishing trawler tries to open up with a 20mm, assuming it doesn't shake the boat apart (I doubt a 5" gun would be practical on the sort of fishing boats they're using), they might get away with it once. But they will be committing an egregious enough act of war that I daresay by the second time they try that sort of stunt, the relevant military forces will be thinking "air strike." Any trawler with that sort of armament is not only going to be very conspicuous, it's going to be public enemy #1, and the odds of it ever getting back to port in one piece will be pretty small.
.50 BMG return fire from trained hands is more than any of these pirates can handle. Frankly, I think two guys with Remington 700s chambered in .30-06 or .308 (both of which can easily reach out and touch someone at much longer range than 7.62x39 AKs) is likely to be enough firepower to fairly easily hold these clowns at bay.
You guys are mostly blinded by the light of your own reasoning.
No armed teams can ever board a merchantman unless the ship's insurer gives the OK. Since these ships' insurers would rather pay the ransom, deal with late cargoes, etc, just how much chance is there that the London barristers are going to approve ANY armed security?
If there was the slightest desire in the shipping industry to end this piracy, it would have been ended right after it started up.
As for treating the pirates too well when they are captured, there is a treaty which specifies that ALL captured pirates are to be landed in Mombasa and turned over to the Keynans.
President Obama scoffed at the treaty when he hauled the injured kiddie pirate from the Maersk Alabama before a judge in New Yuk City.
There is specific judicial treatment available for pirates, and they are easy to capture. The fact that few ARE captured shows how little interest there is in ending the pirate problem.
"You guys are mostly blinded by the light of your own reasoning.
No armed teams can ever board a merchantman unless the ship's insurer gives the OK. Since these ships' insurers would rather pay the ransom, deal with late cargoes, etc, just how much chance is there that the London barristers are going to approve ANY armed security?"
Yep, you're right.
signed,
"blinded by the light"
Is it just me, or is anyone else struck by the similarities of this (both pro and con) to the US CCW debate that has been going on over the past decade?
Kristopher wrote:
This is why using submarines to sink motherships is a good idea ... you can't serve papers for an excessive force lawsuit unless you can prove what country's sub did the deed.
Kristopher's idea above could be a game changing idea for this problem. There could be some issues though. Could pirate "victims" subpoena navy records to find out if our sub did the deed? Could the subs complete the attack before the pirates can get hostages on board? Could helicopter or jets intercept in time without being identified(I doubt it). Would every pirate boat start carrying a hostage? Could subs from a country with a less friendly court system do the deed. Could a plaintiff subpoena US navy records to find out what other navy the sub belonged to? Do the pirate motherships carry a large number of innocent fishermen? Would it be acceptable to the international community for a country to just start sinking boats and killing people secretly without giving them a chance to surrender?
It sounded like a good idea at first but I'm less enthused than I was. The best solution would be for all countries to let ships carry a little protection. Every country recognizes the need for armed police. It's crazy not to recognize the need for ships to protect themselves in the face of rampant armed piracy. Putting full time police on every ship or providing navy protection is just impractical. I guess that portion of people who think the cannon balls should be banned, think there is some other solution like providing some loving and nurturing to the nation of Somalia.
The USN has a wonderful anti-pirate platform. It is tested in
the naval gunnary range off SoCal, past Catalina.
The whole stabilization and positioning system from the
M1A1 Abrams tank is de-armored and mounted on skid.
Twin 50 BMG belt-fed guns with compensators are mounted
where the main tank gun would go.
Typical target practice is 1000 yards. The boats run
at 40 knots, but are only 35' long. They can put lots of
holes in a 1 meter target on the power, blasting across
the waves.
Put a few of these systems on merchant ships. Link the
ammo HE AP HE AP Trace. Explosions, holes and fire
delivered from 1000 yards. Problem solved in a few months.
The pirates are businessmen. Fine. Make them dead businessmen.
Let me get this straight - you guys are proposing that every small craft that approaches within 1000 meters of a protected vessel be taken under fire by the rifle teams or other weapons systems? Because that's what it sounds like to me. And that is about as likely as being able to destroy the shore bases of the pirates (another favorite suggestion of airmchair tacticians). You *might* be able to get away with firing warning shots, I suppose. And if they don't sheer off; and ti turns out that the people in the boats weren't armed when you hole shoot off their engines? What then? (And that's the best-case scenario).
The submarine idea to target motherships is laughable - a fishing trawler is a very poor torpedo target, not enough draft. And still falls under the target identification problem. These are functional fishing trawlers that happen to supplement their catch by mothering the speedboats. Sinking every fishing trawler within 1000 km of the Horn of Africa is not going to get much traction.
Better to invest in passive antiboarding equipment and techniques. If the pirates can't grapple or board, they can't take the ship. As mentioned previously, they can't mount any weaponry capable of destroying or even doing much more than superficial damage to a serious oceangoing vessel. Look for analogues to the anti-scaling techniques using in castles, or maybe concrete "bombs" to drop overside into the boats once they pull alongside and attempt to grapple. These have the advantage of not (necessarily) increasing manning requirements, and not placing "weapons" on board the ship at any point.
The analogy to CCW is apt; in that most places in the US disapprove of a CCW permit holder shooting someone when they are across the street and approaching the permitee with no overt hostile intent displayed.
The pirate attacks are deplorable - no question. If caught, the pirates have given up the protections of the civilized world, no question. But in the present circumstances, you can't ID a pirate vessel until the grapnels are flying (by which point it's too late).
"Let me get this straight - you guys are proposing that every small craft that approaches within 1000 meters of a protected vessel be taken under fire by the rifle teams or other weapons systems? Because that's what it sounds like to me."
You're missing an important point. As I understand it, these ships can be as long as 700 to 800 meters. I don't know for sure but it wouldn't surprise me if the bridge was close to 100 meters over the water. This means that a pirate boat RIGHT NEXT TO THE SHIP and obviously intending to board her can still be many hundreds of meters (or yards) away from the bridge (or a Barrett .50. And then there are the pictures of boats with half a dozen people all armed with RPGs and AKs. Not hard to establish intent there.
As far as stabilized tank-like turrents go. You just went up at least an order of magnitude in cost. Hard to beat a couple of Barretts and some armour plating for cost effectiveness.
As i postualted over at Transterrestrial, a couple af JMB's Ma Deuce .50 machine guns would do the trick.
It is far easier to train a competent machine gunner than it is to train a competent sniper.
To Alan A. If the pirates are boarding at the bow, ho, pray tell, is the rifle team going to be able to see them from the bridge castle at the stern? The entirety of the ship is in the way.
Your passive anti-boarding techniques suffer from the same flaw as all the other passive denial techniques (ex: barbed wire, fences, mine-fields, etc.) Without someone to cover them with active fire, they can eventually be overcome. Concrete bombs definitely WON'T work. To be effective, they would have to be huge - hence unmanagable and incapable of being aimed effectively.
Sadly, as much as I would want to simply go on a rampage and kill pirates, that simply won't fix the problem. It's like winning the lottery: even though there's a chance you could get killed, if you have no where else to turn to make ends meet, and you can make millions in one fell swoop, why wouldn't you turn to piracy?
To fix the problem, you have to attack the heart of the issue: the horrible economic situation in Somalia. If people there had a hope for a decent future, they would be less inclined to turn to piracy, and less inclined to tolerate those that do. Just like in Iraq, one can win militarily, but only by an effort in state-building can you prevent the next war.
The military will always respond, and will be an effective means of keeping people around the world safe. But what is needed is a push by others (the State Department comes to mind) to create alternatives for people. A real "carrot and stick" method if you will.
Besides, there are plenty of natural resources and natural ports in Somalia that can EASILY make the country rich. In fact, in ancient times, it WAS rich. We are missing a great chance, right now, to make Somalia a real nation (and a great ally to the US).
Everyone loves to think of ways to immediately strike against the enemy, but the real genius is in the person that fixes the issue as a whole.
"If the pirates are boarding at the bow, ho, pray tell, is the rifle team going to be able to see them from the bridge castle at the stern? The entirety of the ship is in the way."
I suspect that boarding at the bow would be extremely difficult if not impossible. But let's say they succeed. They still have to get to the crew or bridge, etc. A little bit of prior planning on the part of the captain/crew would allow coverage of any hatches (now locked and dogged) to the ship's interior by the Barretts. Getting on the boat is only half the battle if they have to traverse the length of it to the bridge. A locked steel door by itself can eventually be defeated. A locked steel door covered by a .50 Barrett is another matter entirely.
The hardware is of little consequence.
What is essential - and generally missing - is the desire to fight back, and let someone else waste his day fretting about the consequences.
Without that mind-set, the Light .50 is just a paperweight.
"To fix the problem, you have to attack the heart of the issue: the horrible economic situation in Somalia. If people there had a hope for a decent future, they would be less inclined to turn to piracy, and less inclined to tolerate those that do. Just like in Iraq, one can win militarily, but only by an effort in state-building can you prevent the next war."
This was already tried once, remember? In general, the people with power don't want help. It's a challange to their power.
I'm not buying.
Hardening the target isn't the answer. Destroying the motive is.
It would be much simpler to bomb the Hell out of just one pirate enclave. Start the op in broad daylight, with CNN nearby & cameras running, broadcasting the news all across the region. Follow-up with gun-camera broadcasts of the sinking of every local pirate floater near that base.
Remaining pirates would make adjustments to career choices.
"The hardware is of little consequence.
What is essential - and generally missing - is the desire to fight back, and let someone else waste his day fretting about the consequences.
Without that mind-set, the Light .50 is just a paperweight."
Exactly! Just like the CCW issue! Not everyone (or even most) has the desire, but that's no reason to take away from those that do.
The problem with your proposal is it costs too little. It does not give chances for "experts" and the "international communities" to bilk the ship owners. Ergo, your simple, cost efficient, anti-piracy proposal will not be adopted.
It's my understanding the only way these pirates are boarding the much larger ships is via grappling hooks. I like the deterrent effect of blowing them out of the water too but why are the ships crew apparently unable to cut the ropes to the grappling hooks to prevent boarding in the first place? What am I missing here?
"Hardening the target isn't the answer. Destroying the motive is.
It would be much simpler to bomb the Hell out of just one pirate enclave. Start the op in broad daylight, with CNN nearby & cameras running, broadcasting the news all across the region. Follow-up with gun-camera broadcasts of the sinking of every local pirate floater near that base."
It is not an either/or situation. Hardening the target does not preclude bombing the hell out of them.
Again, this is exactly like the CCW situation. Having a concealed weapon does not make police obsolete. It merely gives the potential victim more options - such as not being a victim.
Is it just me, or does anybody else find all this hand wringing about "making sure they are pirates, before we shoot" just a little inane? What legitimate reason would a small boat have for approaching a merchant ship? Yes, upon occasion there will be engine trouble and/or a medical emergency; but I would venture to guess, that on most occasions, when you see a fishing boat speeding toward your ship, it isn't because Achmed's appendix just blew out. Besides if the "pirate ship" goes down with all hands, exactly who would be left to complain? Enough of those "incidents" and I'm sure legitimate Somali fisherman, would decide that - discretion being the better part of valor - it would behoove them to move away from - rather then toward - any approaching merchant ships.
We can armchair this all day, but the pros are already on the job.
Max Hardberger is not just a Freighter Captain, but a maritime lawyer. Quiet work doesn't always get noticed except by the bad guys.
Arming the vessels seems like a great solution. So, why hasn't anyone done it? Because according to international maritime law that makes the merchant vessel a war ship and is against the law. Next solution please.
If noone can stop piracy, then the citizens of the United States should do it.
Oh, the US government would stop it, in our home waters?
There are several strategies. Each with a countermeasure.
Step 1. Arm merchantmen. That is the method proposed. Countermeasure: pirates move to armed warships.
Step 2. Convoys excorted by warships. Countermeasure: Separate warships from convoy members with mines (WWI and WWII torpedoes were a form of hasty minefield)
Step 3. Secure the Coastline. This is what stopped the Barbary pirates. Spain, France and Italy took over the Moroccan, Algerian and Tunesian coasts. Countermeasure: Gurrilla war against the occupying powers.
The author is proposing a modest, affordable, available, proportional response to the current dilemma of piracy.
It will work. Night-vision optics handle the only other eventuality.
Ending poverty in Somalia??? I seem to remember that this has been attempted several times. I don't think the pirates have exhausted all their vocational options before trying piracy. It is an opportunity and they made a choice.
A large ship is much more stable than any ship the pirates will have access to. A few trained marksmen with .50 rifles can defeat any boats that would hazard a trip alongside the ship. They pull up beside you and you shoot holes in their boat, motor, and friends. They will find something else to do.
Oh yeah the next solution. Small fixed wing aircraft with longer on station time patrol the AO and call for Helo gunships to respond to incidents. Small units attack the mother ships. Small units attack the coastal enclaves that host the leaders. Improve pirace issue and do not diturb the anti-terror petri dish being run in somalia. www.strategicservicesgrp.com
It would work fine, except that you'd actually need 2 2-man teams. At 1500 meters, you need a spotter. The odds are better in close quarters when you have 4 guys, too.