Modern Pirates

[Medsailor]

IMO have issued guidance (http://www.imo.org/en/MediaCentre/Pr...x#.WCGkBtIrLIU) on this matter but a number of member states strongly object to PCASP in principle and thus binding legislation is not an option.

As for the embarkation/disembarkation of PCASP and their associated weapons, most Flag States just say 'in accordance with the regulations of the Port State'. Some ports are easier than others.

There is a real wide range of quality, from fly-by-night organisations to high-quality companies with ISO certification and top-notch personnel and procedures. The problem is that, AFAIK, no Flag State is actively inspecting how their regulations/guidance are being implemented at sea.

Much as I thought. It sounds too much like a gunslinger rides into town and he may just also be a homicidal maniac , not under control. It needs to be regularised and brought under a Maritime Alliance attached to an EU/UN mandate using only National trained serving personnel, directed and controlled by an O I/C of at least Sergeant/ Petty Officer Rank using agreed ROE's.[/QUOTE]

After what happened to the two Italian Marines who were arrested by Indian authorities and the impact of that on a whole range of issues, including Fincantieri's bid to provide propulsion for the new Indian CV, states are a bit leery of providing service personnel.

AVPDs were used by EUNAVFOR ATALANTA including our guys at one time but these were assigned solely to World Food Programme contracted ships running into Mogadishu. Some countries did provide national elements to ships under their flag under purely internal arrangements.

PCASPs can be an excellent solution and, to be fair, I would say that the majority of companies provide a professional service. Much also depends on the Master of the vessel who retains overall responsibility but I think that the real solution is to provide hard rules at IMO level and a programme of auditing similar to that applied for ISPS. Fact of the matter is that with the sheer number of vessels out there, most medium-size European navies could spend all their time doing nothing but AVPDs if military personnel became mandatory. I understand the reaction of uniformed or ex-uniformed personnel to the use of armed civilians but we've done the same with banks, cash vans, airports and a whole range of other things. The days (and budgets) of States providing cradle to grave security are long gone.

[DeV]

Also do they stay on board for the duration of the voyage?

[Medsailor]

Also do they stay on board for the duration of the voyage?

Given that ship operators pay by the day and many times their Flag States only permit the issue of weapons from the secure storage in high risk areas, the answer is generally no. As pointed out before, not all ports are user-friendly when it comes to embarking/disembarking of PCASPs and their weapons. One solution that some of the larger companies have come up with are Armoury Ships (http://www.wsj.com/articles/how-floa...eas-1422934573) which provide storage for weapons and temporary accomodation for PCASPs before they embark aboard the ship they are detailed to protect.

This is not an easy topic and administrations have wrestled with the various problems for some time. This is one way of going about the legislative side - http://justiceservices.gov.mt/Downlo...emid=24474&l=1

[ancientmariner]

This is not an easy topic and administrations have wrestled with the various problems for some time. This is one way of going about the legislative side - http://justiceservices.gov.mt/Downlo...emid=24474&l=1[/QUOTE]

The above mentioned Document issued by the Maltese Government is apt and pertinent. A draft ROE produced for a Command and Staff Course followed proportionate responses. If a craft or someone on it fired a shot directly at your vessel, you issued a verbal warning by all/any means. If a second shot was fired you replied with a close warning shot. If a third shot was fired you replied with sufficient power to eradicate the threat and neutralise the platform being used. Attempts at boarding would be treated using water cannon and firepower where necessary, including sinking the attacking craft.

Piracy attack needs to be covered with more clarity by UNCLOS and not alone by Flag States, to include the High Seas elements.

[Medsailor]

This is not an easy topic and administrations have wrestled with the various problems for some time. This is one way of going about the legislative side - http://justiceservices.gov.mt/Downlo...emid=24474&l=1

The above mentioned Document issued by the Maltese Government is apt and pertinent. A draft ROE produced for a Command and Staff Course followed proportionate responses. If a craft or someone on it fired a shot directly at your vessel, you issued a verbal warning by all/any means. If a second shot was fired you replied with a close warning shot. If a third shot was fired you replied with sufficient power to eradicate the threat and neutralise the platform being used. Attempts at boarding would be treated using water cannon and firepower where necessary, including sinking the attacking craft.

Piracy attack needs to be covered with more clarity by UNCLOS and not alone by Flag States, to include the High Seas elements.[/QUOTE]

I would argue that UNCLOS is not the best place for more clarity given that (a) its a strategic rather than a tactical document and (b) amending it requires the consensus of all parties which would be a stretch. It already provides a very robust basis in that it provides for universal jurisdiction on the high seas in regard to acts of piracy. With the exception of acts of slavery in the same legislation, this is a unique and powerful jurisdictional nexus that has not been achieved anywhere else nor in relation to any other crime, not even drug trafficking or terrorism.
Perhaps a more globally-aligned version of BMP 4 (http://eunavfor.eu/wp-content/upload...pt_5_20111.pdf) would be the best way to go.

[ancientmariner]

Perhaps a more globally-aligned version of BMP 4 (http://eunavfor.eu/wp-content/upload...pt_5_20111.pdf) would be the best way to go.[/QUOTE]

Possibly but it seems that version would require as much leg work to get a globally-aligned actionable document. I think UNCLOS will allow any Naval Vessel to intervene in order to prevent piracy.

[Medsailor]

Perhaps a more globally-aligned version of BMP 4 (http://eunavfor.eu/wp-content/upload...pt_5_20111.pdf) would be the best way to go.

Possibly but it seems that version would require as much leg work to get a globally-aligned actionable document. I think UNCLOS will allow any Naval Vessel to intervene in order to prevent piracy.[/QUOTE]


Yep, but don't expect ROEs etc to be in that level of document. Powers are lovely, exercising them in detail can be challenging.

[ancientmariner]

Possibly but it seems that version would require as much leg work to get a globally-aligned actionable document. I think UNCLOS will allow any Naval Vessel to intervene in order to prevent piracy.

Yep, but don't expect ROEs etc to be in that level of document. Powers are lovely, exercising them in detail can be challenging.[/QUOTE]

The requirement is that each Country involve in a mission must issue its participants with clear ROE's. If possible these should be from a draft supplied by the Mission sponsers. If not the relevant Prime Ministers office assumes the responsibility of having the RULES issued to it's units to ensure they act under at least National Law.

[Sparky42]

Seems the EU operation will be extended for another 2 years:
http://www.thejournal.ie/somali-pira...06462-Nov2016/

[danno]

Damned if you do, damned if you dont..... http://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/news/...-dunn-12207118

[danno]

More attacks;
http://www.defenceweb.co.za/index.ph...d=74&Itemid=30

[danno]

The attacks continue;
http://www.maritime-executive.com/ar...gerian-pirates

[Medsailor]

The attacks continue;
http://www.maritime-executive.com/ar...gerian-pirates

And now back to Somalia.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-39264343

[ancientmariner]

Yes a Sri Lankan ship. First hijack since 2012. Our Government are involved in Training a Somalian Coast Guard and it all depends how the students are employed after they graduate! They should spend some of their money on Famine and social assistance.

[danno]

Seems to be resolved without cash or casualty.

'Pirates' release ARIS 13 without ransom
March 17, 2017 at 02:29 by Mikhail Voytenko in Maritime Security 138
Mar 17 UPDATE:
BBC report:
Somali pirates who hijacked an oil tanker have released it without condition, according to officials.
The announcement came hours after the pirates and naval forces exchanged gunfire over a boat believed to be carrying supplies to the hijackers.
Abdirahman Mohamud Hassan, the director general of the Puntland maritime police force, said: "There has been discussion going on after the gunfight this afternoon... We took our forces back and thus the pirates went away." A pirate confirmed the release was made without a ransom payment, according to Reuters. However, John Steed, a former British army officer who has spent years negotiating the release of piracy hostages in Somalia, told the AFP news agency they had been made an offer they could not refuse.
It was not immediately clear if the hijackers were fishermen or professional pirates.
Taking it all, it doesn’t look like a piracy, let alone carried out by “professional pirates”. It just doesn’t fit into professional piracy scheme.
Voytenko Mikhail
March 17, 2017

[ancientmariner]

Good news all round. What does piracy look like- a number of boats in attack, gunfire, getting on board the tanker !! Maybe a Russian picnic.

[danno]

Latest insight.

http://www.maritime-executive.com/ar...help-from-nato

FP is well within the remit of the NS.

[danno]

Charlie Romeo has some serious units at his disposal.

http://www.slnnews.com/2016/12/somal...operation-ata/

[na grohmití]

Doesn't surprise me for an instant.

[danno]

This recent incident passed off without any casualties etc.

08.04.2017: 1310 UTC: Posn: 14:02N – 051:40E: 147nm SE off Al Mukalla, Gulf of Aden.
While underway armed pirates in a skiff came alongside and boarded a tanker. The Master and crew stopped the engine and retreated into the citadel and requested for help. On 09.04.2017 the vessel was boarded by authorities and all crew rescued. No pirates were found on board. The crew resumed control of the vessel and sailed to a safe port.

[danno]

Most recent incident;


Attack Number: Type of Vessel : Narrations:
SUS-006 Container This incident will not be included in the IMB statistics.

16.04.2017: 1022 UTC: Posn: 12:49.1N – 043:16.0E, Bab el Mandeb, Red Sea.
Three suspicious, blue hull skiffs with five persons in each approached a container ship underway. Master raised the alarm, the non-essential crew retreated into the citadel and the armed security team showed their weapons. Master informed the coalition warship about the approaching skiffs. When the skiffs were around one nm from the ship, the armed team fired a rocket flair resulting in the skiffs aborting the approach. At 1035 UTC, another white hull skiff with six persons onboard approached the ship. The security team fired another rocket flair towards the skiff resulting in the skiff crossing the ships bow and moving away. At 1050 UTC, another two skiffs were seen approaching the ship. At a distance of 0.7nm from the ship the security guards showed their weapons resulting in the skiffs aborting and seen heading towards Mayyun. All crew safe. The ship continued her passage.

[danno]

Further ones;

50-17 Crude Oil Tanker 19.04.2017: 0845 UTC: Posn: 03:25N - 005:46E, around 59nm SSW of Brass, Nigeria
Nine pirates in a skiff approached and fired upon a tanker underway. Alarm raised, fire pumps started and non-essential crew retreated to the citadel. Vessel increased speed and conduct evasive maneuvers. While the Master communicated with the escort vessel the skiff was seen aborting and moving away. Crew and tanker reported safe.



049-17 Tug 19.04.2017: 0934 UTC: Posn: 04:06.43N - 006:15.34E, around 10.8nm South of Brass, Nigeria
An offshore tug was attacked and boarded by armed persons. They kidnapped eight crew members and escaped. The Nigerian Navy responded to the incident. One crew was reported injured and evacuated by helicopter.

[DeV]

https://www.maritime-executive.com/a...r=1#gs.DLOr3HI new threats

[ancientmariner]

https://www.maritime-executive.com/a...r=1#gs.DLOr3HI new threats

In today's environment where modern military/naval equipment is fitted with positional data Tx's and trackers, but more worryingly with manufacturer features which can at some stage cause degradation of performance, it is necessary that ships acquire equipment and Defences from bona fides sources.
I have harped on that we need to consider MINS Navigation systems, smarter gunnery systems, and missiles . We must accept that all Naval Vessels are ultimately potential targets especially for asymmetric threats both from flying and surface autonomous craft. If we are to continue overseas deployment then we must be Good to Go.

[ancientmariner]

Just to point out that defence vulnerability lies in fitted software. Where does it come from? Has it been verified deeply and passed? Can it be verified at user level and can inputs over internet and CD-Rom be also verified before installation.