Arrgh. No LCS; Many Pirates

Arrgh. No LCS; Many Pirates

Johny Depp and the “Pirates of the Caribbean” franchise may make the men who seize ships and kill those who get in their way seem, well, swashbuckling. But through most of modern history, people and governments have regarded pirates as the scum of the earth and a grave threat to civilized rule and global trade.

Now we see pirates taking enormous ships — the Saudi Arabian-owned supertanker Sirius Star — and seeming to face virtually no threats or retaliation from the greatest power afloat, the US Navy. They took it in international waters, about 450 miles from the Somali coast, and then moved it off the coast of Somalia, where they have begun negotiations for a $25 million ransom. The ship carries 2 million barrels of oil valued at about $110 million.

I asked John Young, the Pentagon’s head of acquisition and the Navy’s former top acquisition official, whether the US had the weapons to take action against the pirates. “There’s no question that, if the Navy had LCS [Littoral Combat Ships], they would be there,” he told me at a breakfast with reporters last Thursday. The Navy plans to build 55 LCS, but costs on the first few ships roared out of control, rising to at least $460 million from a planned $220 million.

We don’t have any Littoral Combat Ships to clean up this mess and demonstrate the folly of violating the laws of the seas, although I understand from a reliable source that a US ship is standing roughly 1,000 yards from the captured tanker. So does the relative lack of military activity mean that the US Navy has no other assets to use against pirates and other forces, such as terrorists and insurgents, who are certain to operate in the littoral? Or does it mean that the Navy is overstretched? Or is the Navy wary of littoral operations, which can be complex and difficult to plan and very threatening to ships not designed for them (those impressive carrier battle groups don’t seem to be much use against pirates in little boats)? Or do we just lack rigorous concepts of operations that would help the Navy react quickly with the assets it already possesses?

This all grows in importance with today’s news that shipping officials want a military blockade along the Somali coast to stop pirate vessels heading out to sea.

Before the rise of American power, it was the Royal Navy that secured the global sea lanes and moved to squelch the slave trade with its patrols in East and West Africa. With the rise of American power before World War II, the US Navy extended its reach up China’s Yangzte River and others and patrolled the Pacific with the British. And, of course, one of America’s first expressions of international power was given voice by the US Navy and the Marines in the early 19th century when they quelled the Barbary pirates in the Mediterranean. Given the current state of affairs it does not seem likely that an American will write any songs mentioning the shores of Somali.

This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.

Join the Conversation

The US Navy is doing exactly as tasked by policy. The Navy doesn’t make the policy regarding Somalia or piracy, it impliments it.

Galrahn,

You may be right. But if the US policy is to, effectively, accept a certain level of piracy and hope that negotiations/bribes/ransoms take care of the problems that result I would argue that the policy is wrong. This sort of piracy — seizing oil tankers and other large ships — threatens global trade. If we don’t prevent it and punish those responsible hasn’t the US and therefore the Navy abdicated one of its most sacred duties?

The US Navy is not a police force. Commercial shipping should be providing for it’s own security. Options are obvious.

I’m with Colin C on this one: “If we don’t prevent it and punish those responsible hasn’t the US and therefore the Navy abdicated one of its most sacred duties?”

(technically, it’s the USMC hymn that has pertainances to piracy…I’m not familiar with the Navy anthem/hymn…)

So let me see then, the whole “we won’t/don’t negotiate with terrorists” policy that the US (Bush administration) highly touts, technically pirates aren’t to be considered terrorists?
(what exactly is the difference, other than land and sea? They still murder, rape, pillage, enslave, destroy, steal, plunder, kill, torture, brutally butcher, hold for hostage, instilling fear, and cause general mayhem and strife wherever they tread…)

My guess?
Since the piracy isn’t going on off the coast of the USA, the priority on behalf of the US Govt (policy makers) must then be, “if they ain’t storming up the Potomac, eh, we don’t really care, as long as they stay on their side of the ocean” ?

Isn’t piracy one of the things that drove the focus on littoral operations, whether it be state-sponsored piracy (ie Iran) or private piracy (Somalia)?

If so, obvious ship is a small ship (corvette) using off the shelf components and not trying to stretch the envelope (ie how much extra does it cost to drive the LCS at 40+ knots as opposed to 30+ knots?).

A good analogy to discount shipping self-defense would be to require big-rig trucks to provide their own security as they drive through unsafe neighborhoods. Piracy isn’t rampant throughout the world; it’s prevalent in certain areas. Should police departments not protect commercial trucks as they drive through bad neighborhoods? World navies need to form a rotating task force responsible for securing pirate-infested areas. Furthermore, pirates operate without ethics; we should operate similarly. No harm no foul in blasting a go-fast — and its crew — out of the water.

If one reads the official maritime strategy of the USN and if one reads the documents whereby the USCG is to work with the USN, it is clearly a core task for the USN. Indeed, the whole point of greater maritime collaboration is to provide for maritime security. If the USN is not relevant to this, it is sort of like saying the US Army and the USMC are not relevant to COIN operations and should not do them. Further, the USAF has dramatically shifted its focus over the past 5 years to provide support for the ground fighter. Change can be done; the tasks demand the solution; not the other way around

@Stephen
The US navy was originally set up to fight a series of attacks by Barbary pirates. So you could argue that in peace time that is exactly what they are for.
Your arguement that “Commercial shipping should be providing for it’s own security.” is interesting, what do companies pay tax for? You pay tax and expect a police force, so do companies.
As for only defending US ships, would you rather that Saudi Arabia or some other nation in this area had a larger Navy?

companies have a financial incentive to register under non-U.S. flags. In addition, foreign-flag vessel owners do not pay any corporate income taxes on the revenue earned in U.S. foreign commerce. By comparison, vessels operating under the U.S. flag are subject to all the taxes and regulations applicable in the United States, resulting in higher costs for ownership and operation.
xxxx
to that point, no US flagged vessels have been captured or attacked in recent times.

xxxxx
Barbary pirates were ‘state’ sanctioned as it were and directly attacked US ships and citizens.
Piracy is a world problem and the world needs to take care of it.

Shipping companies could hire Blackwater types to protect their ships when they have to transit threat areas.
It’s a huge waste of resources when you patrol thousands of square miles of ocean 24/7.
Offensive weaponry and skilled operators would be infinitely more efficient.

After reading the previous posts. It sounds as if everyone is frustrated by a lack of leadership, sound policy, and coherent planning. Sort of like the yelling that occurs during a boxing match, when one of the boxers has gotten a bit “gun shy”. All of the posts have been correct. Governments, with naval assets in the area, should do everything they can to stop piracy. And companies should do everything (within the law) they can to protect their employees & ships. But unfortunately, piracy is big-business, and nobody is willing to do what it takes to shut’em down.

It’s a bit of historical irony that Admiral Zumwalt, created PHM (Patrol, Hydrofoil, Missile) “project to increase the Navy’s number of surface vessels in a cost-effective manner”. The PHM might have come in rather handy when dealing with Somali pirates, that is if the Navy hadn’t scrapped them. And yet the ship named after Admiral Zumwalt, the DDG-1000, seems to be ‘running aground’ in cost-overruns. :\

http://​en​.wikipedia​.org/​w​i​k​i​/​P​e​g​a​s​u​s​_​c​l​a​s​s​_​h​y​d​r​o​f​oil

Why is this being portrayed in the context of an U.S. problem? It’s international. As one person noted earlier, no U.S. vessels have been seized. If the USN were to act aggressively to rescue any hostages, then imagine the second guessing and (international) condemnation–not to mention lawsuits–were the attempt to go awry and crewmembers killed or wounded? Our good friends, the Saudis, wouldn’t hesitate to submit a bill for damage to their tanker if it were to get damaged in a U.S. rescue effort. Further, what if the pirates were to open the valves and let the oil spill into the ocean. Of course, the U.S. (and President Bush) would be condemned for causing this environmental calamity!

If ever there was a tailor made situation that just screams for international cooperation, this is it. If the UN can’t get its act together for this one, then it really is impotent.

Indeed, for an example of how the world might respond to the US conducting unilateral military aggression against rogue actors, look to the response to our 2003 invasion of Iraq.

As if to illustrate the pitfalls of unilateral action, the story is coming out that the “pirate ship” the Indian Navy sank–for which they were roundly praised–is a Thai fishing boat.

http://​news​.yahoo​.com/​s​/​a​p​/​2​0​0​8​1​1​2​6​/​a​p​_​o​n​_​r​e​_​a​s​/​p​i​r​acy

From hero to goat.…

If the Navy starts empowering policy that is an act of war. Navy has their hands full already. The US Coast Guard is designed for International Waters and setting policy in the interest of the US. As long as the US interests are not involved lets wait and see if the companies can take care of themselves. The US taxpayers are always paying in the interest of other lets get other countries to start moving into global security.

Unlike big-rig trucks that are running on American soil, these ships are running under foreign flags with foreign crews in international waters. If they want to run Panamanian flags then let the Panamanian Navy protect them. Otherwise, they can hire Blackwater.

What I don’t understand is we know where they live, I mean down to the village, we know where the boats are, why don’t we sit offshore and with predators and cruise missiles just wipe these guys and their village off the face of the earth.

The hell with somalia it will never be more than it is now, a third world porta potty.
We got no dogs in this fight let the tanker’s countries take care of their own ships UNILATERALY with each other.

Why not visit “Old Ironsides” and ask her spirit what to do. I think we need some “Iron men in wooden ships” thinking today. What we have are admirals more concerned with protecting their image and working for a defense contrator when they retire. Oh, maybe we could go up to Battleship Cove in Mass, and rediscover PT “Patrol Torpedo” boats.

Should the National Command Authority determine that it is the US legitimate and necessary role to address piracy in the Gulf of Adan, the Navy and Marine Corp clearly have the means necessary, if not the ideal tools such as LCS.

However, what everyone is ignoring is that few if any (none I can name) of the ships highjacked have been American flagged vessels with American crews. That was not the case with the Barbary Coast pirates. They were taking American flagged vessels with American crews.

Additionally, until the last 12 months, the problem was little more than a nuisance in the Gulf of Adan. The problem in the Malacca Straights was efficiently dealt with several years ago with the participation of the US Navy. The problem in the Gulf of Adan has only recently reach a point where it makes sense for the US to consider taking a leadership role in solving the problem. As we all know, Governments move slowly and must build public concensus before taking such action. After the last debacle we got ourselved into in Somalia, and considering the current public view of wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, is it at all surprising that our Government would be hesitant to step in directly? What part of the International Laws of the Sea allow us to act against pirates taking foreign flagged and crewed ships and risking the liability we incur if those ships are damaged or sunk in our attempt to “rescue” them?

Being a typical “blood thirsty” former surface warfare Destroyerman, my inclination would be, lets go solve the problem — blow the pirates out of the water and damn the consequences. But that is probably why I did not make admiral (or anything close).

The pirate boats have a distinct signature base.
The boats have a limited range.
Relatively, they are poorly armed.
Paying contractors a fraction of sit-costs
or ransom to defend the ships will eliminate the pirates. A few pirate casualties-they will stay home. Of course in world opinion it would not be fair to eliminate them with a missile– so
lets just snipe them out of the water, or
more humanely– kill their motors and let them drift.
Blackwater already has the McArthur ready.
Of course; any action resulting in the death’s
of pirates will surely be picked up by the media and blown once again totally out of proportion to the suffering crews; who are only under constant threat of death.
In the past pirates fought with opposition–
these people are murderers.
Let’s give them some opposition!

Have you heard of Sea Fighter FSF 1,a fast catamaran built by ONR in 20 months for ten times less than the LCS and probably an interesting concept for reducing piracy?

So why can’t we task some drones to patrol the area. If we see a small boat chasing a large boat, wherein the occupants have masks and weapons showing…simply put a missile in their midst. Especially when the small boats are a couple hundred miles off the Somali coast. When the pirates sense that many of their boats are not returning, they might reconsider their actions. OR, hire the Israelis, in a no bid contract, to clean up the area…bet that would stop hostile actions in a flash. OR, hire Blackwater to safeguard the tankers.

Seems like a possible job for UAV’s armed with 2.75″ FFAR & Flchetts. You dont want to shoot a million dollar missile at a $100 boat!

Once some sort of policy IS established, perhaps even at the UN, three or four small ships capable of launching and operating a few Preditor type UAV’s could be stationed in a string along the shiping lines with problems. These should be able to patrol and defend ships that come under attack. I understand that these UAV’s have a long loiter/TOT that would allow them to cover a large area and target bad guys easily.

If the UN is incapable, (surprise), of doing anything to resolve this problem, perhaps turn it over to a “Private Contactor”. Someone like Blackwater is more than capable of taking on a mission such as this and implementing it in a few weeks. It will take Governments months, if not years to get it done & at 5 times the cost!

Simply a few low overflights of these guys by Preditors, just to remind them they are being watched by someone that can do them a lot of harm, might change their rather anti-social behaviour. Perhaps convincing them that fishing, rather than the Pirate trade, is a pretty good way to make a living!
JD

It seems the USA and the West have become reluctant world powers. If so, we are all in for a rocky ride until some country, or group of countries, steps forward to re-establish world order.

Piracy is best handled ashore. Otherwise at sea you will always be chasing ghosts and they will keep coming at you because piracy breeds in an environment of failed and lawless states. As long as they have the logistics support infrastructure ashore with cooperation of local authorities and markets to sell their booty piracy is extraordinarily costly and difficult to stamp out. This is a mission for the
Marines and Navy to seize the ports and deny the use of harbor refuge and support logistics.

Unfortunately, coward nations have paid ransom, and made piracy profitable. Now they will have to sleep in this bed.

Ninety percent of the time pundits argue that America should mind their own business and not act as the World’s police force. Yet when they take no action they’re criticized…what’s that about cake and eating it?

I know the boats used are small and fast, but so are some of the assets the Navy already has. seems like a blockade enforced by simply sinking the violators of the blockade would be a simple solution

During WWII, freighters armed themselves with cannon and small arms to fight off German raiders. The shipping company owners are scoundrels, unwilling to pay the price to arm their ships, and hire a security combat team. I’m sure there are plenty of ex-military personnel (like me) willing to perform the mission for the right salary and benefits.

Is Under Secretary Young telling us the USN does not have the right force mix to deal with priacy?!?!? If that is the case then the leadership of the US Navy should stop telling its sailors and the people of the United States that we possess the strongest Navy in the history of world. Some will remember that the USN proved its relevance to the United States by dealing effectively with the Barbary Coast Pirates joe mazzafr

I have an idea: Seems some of the hijacked ships belong to the Saudis. Why can’t they take care of the problem themselves?

Consider: The Saudis have a navy equiped with US-built ships that have the General Dynamics built CIWS Phalanx gun system installed onboard. That gun fires 3000 20mm rounds per minute — talk about making near-instant toothpicks out of a small craft such as the pirates are using.

But then the pirates are likely muslims. Unlikely the Saudis would take any offensive action against such religious ilk.

Probably a bad idea.

Troll Lord I’m sure there are plenty of ex-military personnel (like me) willing to perform the mission for the right salary and benefits.
agreed:
Seems like a paid cruise; just with thermal and night vision and perhaps a Barrett or two. I’m
sure a Helo could land on any of those large ships and contain the rpg carrying gentlemen.
Check Blackwater;the McArthur is exactly designed to contain this kind of behaviour. As they leave land or before they ever get near anyone. Kudos about the comment about the Saudis and getting religious. Another Agenda all together.

Sorry. but one more thought re the U.S. Navy

The Navy has vessels which have the maneuverability– hatches could be battened down and these so called pirates would simply get run over. No gun fire necessary; just bad helmsmanship.
There isn’t anyone giving tickets for that yet..
not out here in the open. I could just see the headlines.….of course if the pirates throw their guns overboard at the last minute and became innocent civilians ?
That’s probably for another blog.

I am still trying to understand how pirates get away after receiving ransom since they are out on a ship far out to sea. If they have boats that are too fast for destroyers and the like, why aren’t similar speed vessels, helicopters, electronic surveillence and tracing equipment with appropriate armaments; with heavier backup vessals deployed to block their escape and capture them. They keep getting away! What’s up with that? We know where they are each and every time.

LCS would be no more effective in these operations than any other surface combatant ship. This is not happening in the littorals off of coast lines. This is happening in deep water.

What we really need to fight this threat is BAMS, which hopefully will be coming on line soon with the Navy Globalhawk. This in conjunction with surface ships and their aircraft should help some.

One thing to consider with regards to how difficult this is to stop is our own drug trafficking problems in the Carribean. Fast boats are used to smuggle tons of drugs in every day.

We should try and protect these shipping lanes because it is economically wise to do so and in our best interests. But we should ensure the safety of only US flagged vessels because that is our only required duty.

DC2

The answer to these pirates is in the past. We should do what the British did during WW1 and deploy Q-Ships, armed ships disguised as commercial shipping. When the pirates attack, drop the camoflage and open fire.
Using Q-Ships there will be no mistaking pirate boats from fishermen, if they attack they are pirates and you sink them.

being a typical “blood thirsty” former surface warfare Destroyerman, my inclination would be, lets go solve the problem — blow the pirates out of the water and damn the consequences. But that is probably why I did not make admiral (or anything close) quoting:jstevensjr
Common Maritime Law dictates to help any vessel
under distress — so in my Navy you would be In charge!
The ransom is paid by a Consortium; not just the shipping Companies. Off setting major profits due to lack of raw materials held up off Somalia allows them the ransom amount.
I don’t think the crew matters; they’re already getting paid extra to transverse those waters, so the owners can rationalize non-guilt.
We all know the ability exists to track these guys; their phones..their bodily heat signatures; etc. Even though seemingly an enigma
due to the non-reaction, there has to be another agenda for this to continue.
Ten guys to take a super crude oil carrier?
I’ll have to do the math..
the ship sights the go-fast coming over the horizon– lats and longs sent-radios the saudis– helos are fast– so are bullets– no boarding. Something is amiss.

I really can’t help myself. (well, actually I guess I could)

May’ be these pirates could be put on a payroll and sent into Iranian waters; Iranians don’t seem to mind boarding people un-necessarily either.
International waters or not. Let’em work it out!
The Grey area is expanding.

Meanwhile, the head of Intertanko — whose members own 75% of the world’s tanker fleet — said many of its members were considering re-routing their ships around South Africa to avoid pirates, and that this would raise costs by 30%.

In an area of the world when the need for the Navy’s newest class of LCS ships to combat piracy there are NONE! Once again, another high profile program that has been funded billions of dollars and no results or better yet, no ships! The Obama administration will no bout cancel this program within the first 100 days of office. The funding will be used for national health care, wealth distribution, or other left-wing and pro-ACLU social programs waiting to be funded!

The pirates, terrorists, criminals, ACORN, ACLU, left-wing groups, and anti-Americans will win under the Obama administration! Get used to it for the next four years!

If the orders to take the ship where given it would be done. If the orders where to sink the ship where given it would be sunk. You dont need a special ship or boat to retake a vessel you only need a seal team or two however due to the geneva conventions it would not be in our intrest to interfer or dictate policy. Most people want action but a soldier only wants peace. So if you think that this tanker or these people provide that great a risk then go after them your-self and leave the american tax dollars and american assets where they need to be and let then u.n. take care of it.

Seems like the sentiment of the majority of the world’s nations can be summed up as “Yankee go home!”. Maybe we’re giving them a small dose of what the world looks like when the yankees choose not to run it. Pain is a wonderful teacher.

We can either let Saudi Arabia pay $25 million rasnom for their $110 million ship, or we can build a $220 million fleet for our Navy to deal with it, while our Navy sits 1,000 yards away and is, what, waiting for it’s hand out? I think there are way too many pirates in this whole thing, and the Somalians are about the least of it.

The pirate issue is a strange one indeed. The LCS issue is now un issue of costs. Will the navy have enough funds for LCS fleets and still aquire Carrier battle groups. Me personally I would love to see an LCS with the ability to host helicopters like the Commanche with smaller vessels for insore pickup/deployment of specfor.
The navy uses carriers because aircraft and helicopters greatly extend range, speed, and force projection of the fleet and the carrier battle group is the visible ‘troops’ that hold the territory. I like the navies expirementation with uncommon ship designs such as the FSF-1 and others.
My last comment is why have a navy if we only use it to protect Mainland? Navy is for projecting power. Carriers project power and LCS fleets are needed to land our troops or back them up. Suck it up and spend the cash. Reduce the gimmicks on the LCS if you have to. Stealth is not a dire need. Neither is lots of big guns. Aircraft can more readily handle that from the carrier fleet and/or the LCS fleet

*required

Spam Protection by WP-SpamFree

NOTE: Comments are limited to 2500 characters and spaces.

By commenting on this topic you agree to the terms and conditions of our User Agreement