Somali pirates hijack ship; 20 Americans aboard

[Budmantom]

Originally posted by: seemingly random

Originally posted by: Budmantom

Originally posted by: seemingly random
I think people are severely disappointed that we don't have a potus like maccain who would be shooting from the hip.

I'm sure Obama is reading a book about leadership.

Why would he need to do this? He's been a community organizer. It's more qualification than anything the party of no has to offer.

Party of No?


Are you referring to spending?

 

[Brainonska511]

Originally posted by: brandonbull

Originally posted by: Brainonska511

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: Superrock
The fact that they attacked American vessels ticks me off. I hope we authorize some real force to blow those pirates out of the water.

Last I heard a Destroyer was on the way.

Yep, the USS Bainbridge, but the last article I read said it won't be there till Thursday morning.

Taking their time?

It's a destroyer with a top speed of 30-40knots, not an airplane. Plus, it was over 300 miles away from the hijacked ship at the time of the hijacking if I remember that article that I read initially. And it's already there according to CNN, it's 5AM Thursday in that part of the world.

 

[seemingly random]

Originally posted by: Budmantom

Originally posted by: seemingly random

Originally posted by: Budmantom

Originally posted by: seemingly random
I think people are severely disappointed that we don't have a potus like maccain who would be shooting from the hip.

I'm sure Obama is reading a book about leadership.

Why would he need to do this? He's been a community organizer. It's more qualification than anything the party of no has to offer.

Party of No?


Are you referring to spending?

This would be the party of no that's still drunk from all the spending of the last eight years - the party that authorized 800+ billion for the start of the financial sector bailout. So, I guess no has different meanings depending on the agenda.

But this isn't about money - it's about calling into doubt the backbone of the potus - something you and yours are doing. Hopefully, if action is needed, obama will act decisively. But I suspect no action will ever be satisfactory to you. I think you want the u.s. to fail in a big way so you will feel vindicated. This isn't illegal but seems immoral - at the very least, unpatriotic.

 

[StageLeft]

Sad to see some people use this as an excuse to attack Obama. We have pirates who take a ship and if Obama isn't already in a fighter jet to the scene within 10 minutes to solve it personally with a rifle and scimitar it somehow indicates his lack of leadership.

 

[trenchfoot]

Originally posted by: Skoorb
Sad to see some people use this as an excuse to attack Obama. We have pirates who take a ship and if Obama isn't already in a fighter jet to the scene within 10 minutes to solve it personally with a rifle and scimitar it somehow indicates his lack of leadership.

Desperation, guilt and denial manifests itself in all kinds of tragically funny and irrational ways.

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: seemingly random
I think people are severely disappointed that we don't have a potus like maccain who would be having a hip replacement.

Fixed! :laugh:

 

[CitizenKain]

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil

Originally posted by: Brainonska511

Originally posted by: piasabird
O'Bamma will do nothing. He is a coward.

Obama won't order the Navy to do anything beyond monitor the situation until the shipping company hands over control of the situation to the Navy.

Obama needs the permission of the shipping company to defend citizens of the United States? Jesus Christ... You are the POTUS.. show some fucking leadership.

Wow, you are pretty fucking stupid, even for a right winger.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: K1052
The USS Iowa is sitting in Suisun Bay not doing anything.

Shouldn't take a whole lot of work to make sure she's seaworthy and find some sailors who remember how to work the 16 inch guns and pound the living shit out of where they're operating from. That's how countries used to handle this sort of thing.

It would probably take a lot of work to make sure she's seaworthy, there are likely almost no sailors still in the fleet who know how to work/maintain her 16 inch guns, there is likely almost no ammunition available for them and the ammo that is around is probably of questionable use having sat on the shelf for almost 20 years, the pirates are probably operating from a coastal city filled with poor, law abiding citizens whose deaths would create a PR nightmare for the US while doing very little to disrupt the pirates' operations, etc. Need I go on?

Every time something happens overseas I love seeing the psychopathic armchair generals come out of the woodwork on here and scream for a bloodbath to fix whatever problem we have.

Actually part of the requirement when they retired them was that the navy had to preserve the ships and have plans in place for a rapid reactivation, should it be required. Provided the shells were stored properly they'll work just fine.

Efforts should also be made to locate the tender ships the pirates are using and sink them as well in addition to taking them out in ports.

Well a quick check on the good 'ol wiki (and yes, they have supporting links for this) says that the US Navy placed the cost of reactivating just two ships at more than $500 million. Furthermore in response to nuxto they would need to spend an additional $110 million to replenish the gunpowder store for the ships because, as I stated before, the gunpowder's extended life on the shelf has made it unsafe and unusable.

You guys want to drop $600 million so we can shoot some pretty guns, when any ship in the fleet is just as capable, if not moreso?

You don't have to refit the whole damn ship to 2009 standards in order to sortie it against this sort of a threat. The projectiles are fine. Propellant charges could probably be replaced for less than $20M as you'd only be doing it for one ship (which has only two operable turrets).

And why are we doing this instead of just using a CG or DDG that could accomplish the same thing for $0 worth of refitting? More importantly we could send one of these ships over there tomorrow instead of waiting the months it would take to service, crew, and train the crew of a BB.

 

[Modelworks]

A really easy solution is to just arm the crews of cargo ships. They already undergo self defense training, they just need to add an armory to the ships.
There were just 4 pirates armed with AK-47. That isn't a hard threat to repel.

Or one machine gun mounted on the fore and aft would be more than enough to stop these type of pirates. They are raiding cargo ships because it is easy prey. Millions of dollars in cargo and the only thing stopping them is a mans fist.

 

[Fear No Evil]

Originally posted by: Modelworks
A really easy solution is to just arm the crews of cargo ships. They already undergo self defense training, they just need to add an armory to the ships.
There were just 4 pirates armed with AK-47. That isn't a hard threat to repel.

Or one machine gun mounted on the fore and aft would be more than enough to stop these type of pirates. They are raiding cargo ships because it is easy prey. Millions of dollars in cargo and the only thing stopping them is a mans fist.

I'd agree with this, the problem is that often the ports you go into forbid you to have any sorts of weapons on board. Since liberals want to disarm all honest people, this is the type of thing that will happen.. only the criminals will have guns and the rest of us will just have to bend over and take it.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil

I'd agree with this, the problem is that often the ports you go into forbid you to have any sorts of weapons on board. Since liberals want to disarm all honest people, this is the type of thing that will happen.. only the criminals will have guns and the rest of us will just have to bend over and take it.

Are you a parody poster?

 

[PricklyPete]

Why doesn't a multinational naval force prepare two staging areas at both ends of the problem area for a group of cargo ship and have one warship at a time escort 20 or so boats through the troubled waters with the warship doing the same in the opposite direction once getting to the other staging area. Seems like it would solve the problem pretty easily and would only require 10 or so warships doing this in parallel to have a regular enough service.

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: Modelworks
A really easy solution is to just arm the crews of cargo ships. They already undergo self defense training, they just need to add an armory to the ships.
There were just 4 pirates armed with AK-47. That isn't a hard threat to repel.

Or one machine gun mounted on the fore and aft would be more than enough to stop these type of pirates. They are raiding cargo ships because it is easy prey. Millions of dollars in cargo and the only thing stopping them is a mans fist.

Seriously, why aren't these ships armed? If it's a port thing then just make them retractable/stowable.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: Modelworks
A really easy solution is to just arm the crews of cargo ships. They already undergo self defense training, they just need to add an armory to the ships.
There were just 4 pirates armed with AK-47. That isn't a hard threat to repel.

Or one machine gun mounted on the fore and aft would be more than enough to stop these type of pirates. They are raiding cargo ships because it is easy prey. Millions of dollars in cargo and the only thing stopping them is a mans fist.

Seriously, why aren't these ships armed? If it's a port thing then just make them retractable/stowable.

Or do what they did in WW2, have a Navy Armed Guard like they did with the Tankers and the Liberty Ships.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: PricklyPete
Why doesn't a multinational naval force prepare two staging areas at both ends of the problem area for a group of cargo ship and have one warship at a time escort 20 or so boats through the troubled waters with the warship doing the same in the opposite direction once getting to the other staging area. Seems like it would solve the problem pretty easily and would only require 10 or so warships doing this in parallel to have a regular enough service.

The cost to the cargo lines of having the ships queue up into a convoy is a concern.
the number of ships passing through vs the cost is a noise ratio that the lines are usually willing to risk.

Also, once you setup a convoy, then the slowest ship controls the speed. It is expensive to not move at full speed.

A convey of 20 ships would require at least 1 mile between vessels (fore to aft) and at least 500 meters port to starboard.


w/ respect to Spidey07 comment on armed.

It is apparently against certain rules for the ships to be "armed" Stowing the weapons will not avoid the port rules.

 

[spacejamz]

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy

It is apparently against certain rules for the ships to be "armed" Stowing the weapons will not avoid the port rules.

wonder what is cheaper, paying the fine for having arms on board the ship or paying $2M ransoms?

actually, what is the penalty? guess it would vary by port/country? is it just a fine or is there jail time involved?

Do these countries not keep up with current events or something?

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: spacejamz

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy

It is apparently against certain rules for the ships to be "armed" Stowing the weapons will not avoid the port rules.

wonder what is cheaper, paying the fine for having arms on board the ship or paying $2M ransoms?

Just what percentage of the ships that travel by the horn of Africa do you think are subject to piracy?

 

[Modelworks]

How the pirates operate.
It looks like we need to use those satellites we have to find the mother ships and blow them out of the water.

Fourteen vessels and about 200 crew are currently under the control of pirates, according to the International Maritime Bureau. Somali pirates, who until last year targeted small ships, have grown in sophistication, graduating to hijacking container ships and even supertankers.

If the cost of insurance becomes prohibitive, said Mr Banafa, or the danger of using Somalia waters becomes too great, shipping lines may avoid the Gulf of Aden.
Mr Banafa said that pirates use mother ships, mostly fishing trawlers hijacked from the sea shore, as posts for further attacks out at sea. They also operate small skiffs on board the hijacked mother ships with powerful outboard engines that can be pulled up to the beach.

The use of mother ships helps to increase the range of attacks. Any ship that is over 300 tonnes, said Mr Banafa, is required by maritime regulations to have an Automatic Identification System (AIS), which helps the vessel to be able to detect and identify other vessels in the deep seas and their characteristics. Hijackers use a mother ship to locate targets as well as naval ships patrolling the sea.

The use of the mother ship, Chatham House of UK says, explains how pirates have managed to increase their range dramatically.

The former warning for ships to stay at least 50 nautical miles off the coastal line has now been replaced with those urging crew increase the range to over 200 nautical miles. The pirates also have sophisticated information technology equipment, Mr Banafa said.

They use GPS systems and satellite phones.

It is also believed that they are plugged to international networks that feed them with information from ports in the Gulf, Europe, Asia and back to Somalia.

 

[spacejamz]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: spacejamz

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy

It is apparently against certain rules for the ships to be "armed" Stowing the weapons will not avoid the port rules.

wonder what is cheaper, paying the fine for having arms on board the ship or paying $2M ransoms?

Just what percentage of the ships that travel by the horn of Africa do you think are subject to piracy?

i dunno...why don't you ask one of the victims to see if the percentage is small enough?

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

And why are we doing this instead of just using a CG or DDG that could accomplish the same thing for $0 worth of refitting? More importantly we could send one of these ships over there tomorrow instead of waiting the months it would take to service, crew, and train the crew of a BB.

A lack of suitable long range firepower.

 

[trenchfoot]

Hiring of private security teams (ala Xe - formerly Blackwater) to man ships that will be navigating known pirate infested seas seems to be doable. Added cost should be worthwhile.

In this way the ship's crews will not have to expose themselves to unnecessary risk.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: eskimospy

And why are we doing this instead of just using a CG or DDG that could accomplish the same thing for $0 worth of refitting? More importantly we could send one of these ships over there tomorrow instead of waiting the months it would take to service, crew, and train the crew of a BB.

A lack of suitable long range firepower.

Please explain what missions you believe need to be undertaken in the Somalia area that require long range naval artillery support that a DDG or CG could not supply.

 

[IGBT]

he'll sing Brenda Lee's , "I'm Sorry" it's all america's fault . then he'll hide behind some form of international consensus.

 

[CitizenKain]

Funny that no articles cover why there is piracy in the area, it certainly couldn't be because many nations take fish from the the waters off the coast which leads to out of work fisherman.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: CitizenKain
Funny that no articles cover why there is piracy in the area, it certainly couldn't be because many nations take fish from the the waters off the coast which leads to out of work fisherman.

More like they have found that hijacking is more profitable.