Armed security for ships

[C-grunt]

There is a video out now of some armed security engaging Somali pirates out on open water. I remember a year or so ago when we were discussing the legal problems with having them. So what's changed? Are the shipping companies now just passing the countries that won't allow armed security? Seems like it would be an awesome job.

Edit: I would post the video but I can't on my phone. Just YouTube " armed security shoot Somali pirates " and it will come up.

[deadlyfire]

Arming the trade ships came down from a decision from the native governments. It was not something the companies/corporations decided to do without asking.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,782661,00.html

[FromMyColdDeadHand]

If the pirates are such an issue, why hasn't a convoy system been implemented yet?

[LowSpeed_HighDrag]

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=5e2_1333668975

Its nice to see people taking matters into their own hands now. The Navy cant be everywhere at once.

[Clint]

Good.

Irresponsible pirate behavior: Meet consequences.


This is a different incident, but has "interesting" commentary from people who still think this is a bad idea without government regulation.
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2010/03/24/private-guards-kill-somali-pirate-time/

[LHS]

Good.

Irresponsible pirate behavior: Meet consequences.


This is a different incident, but has "interesting" commentary from people who still think this is a bad idea without government regulation.
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2010/03/24/private-guards-kill-somali-pirate-time/



"This will be scrutinized very closely," said Arvinder Sambei, a legal consultant for the U.N.'s anti-piracy program. "There's always been concern about these (private security) companies. Who are they responsible to? ... The bottom line is somebody has been killed and someone has to give an accounting of that."


Damn right somebody's been killed, and this time it was the right somebody.

Honestly, I have discovered a legal solution to this whole problem. All it'll take is a tiny little act of Congress: Anti-Pirate Cruise Lines!

Congress has the constitutional authority to issue letters of marque and reprisal. If a private company could get one of these, they could sell tons of tickets and just sail up and down the Somali coast in either a cruise ship or a merchant vessel converted to carry passengers without changing its outward appearance, waiting for pirates to attack. Passengers could bring their own small arms, or rent various arms from the ship's armory. You could even have heavy weapons rentals, such as Mk.19s, Bofors guns, miniguns, M2s, M240s, etc. There could be ammo sales, helicopter tours, scuba diving to check out the wrecks, videography and (for the truly sick and twisted) a full-service taxidermy service on board.

Problem solved, problem staying solved.

[deadlyfire]

If the pirates are such an issue, why hasn't a convoy system been implemented yet?

The US, along with Britain and some other countries have been conducting raids against the pirates as well as maintaining a presence in the area.

[rojocorsa]

Here is some further reading...

http://www.deathvalleymag.com/2011/05/02/civilian-contractors-life-of-a-ship-anti-piracy-operator-eight-weeks-on-the-high-seas/

[SeriousStudent]

.....

Problem solved, problem staying solved.

Rangers lead the way. :D

[LHS]

Rangers lead the way. :D

Obviously the first ship on Honey Badger Cruise Lines would be the SS Stanley.

[Moose-Knuckle]

A member here who has experiance as an anti piracy security contractor posted a vid a few years back of a Russian Navy vessel "dealing" with skinny pirates.


The Iranian Navy just rescued a Chinese crew. . .

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/06/us-china-hijack-idUSBRE8350H120120406

[VooDoo6Actual]

There is a Convoy/Escort system in place. They typically run in the HTZ's such as GOA & extended.
Commercial vessels run in between the "lanes" while the Convoy's maintain COMS and escort perimeter etc.

It takes a DSP 73 to be legally armed as private vessel or P.E.S.T. if the vessel is of US orgin.
As was mentioned the industry as a whole did/does not want private commercial ships armed for a plethora of reasons. UODF liability regarding international law being of paramount concern.
Governmental Diplomats can be armed as well in certain instances.
I was a member of Team on D0D DSP 73 contract in 10' in GOA.

Most commercial Vessels do not have the political juice to accomplish that.
Commercial shipping companies/Vessels that are D0D vendors do period.

Then you have Inter. Maritime Law issues, UODF Insurance Liability issues, Ports of Entry on Manifest, Ammo reconciliation, Weapons locked/tagged/crimped w/ Ports of Entry Inspectors etc.

For instance the first contract BW got almost did not materialize due to heavy Bond that was required for "DB Coverage Act" insurance. The hyperbole & rhetoric on the "DL" was depending on which swinging Dick @ BW I talked w/ it was between 10-20 mil for the bond up front. "EP" had that kind of $.
Since then the standards/criteria/pay scales have all changed & lessened.

The Contractor game has changed significantly in many aspects.

As an example, I turned down two recent UN deployment contracts.

Can't elaborate more due OPSEC sensitive etc.
BEWARE.....

[czydj]

It takes a DSP 73 to be legally armed as private vessel or P.E.S.T. if the vessel is of US orgin.
As was mentioned the industry as a whole did/does not want private commercial ships armed for a plethora of reasons. UODF liability regarding international law being of paramount concern.
Governmental Diplomats can as well in certain instances.
I was a member of Team on DSP 73 contract in 10' in GOA.

Most commercial Vessels do not have the political juice to accomplish that.
Commercial shipping companies/Vessels that are D0D vendors do period.

Then you have Inter. Maritime Law issues, UODF Insurance Liability issues, Ports of Entry on Manifest, Ammo reconciliation, Weapons locked/tagged/crimped w/ Ports of Entry Inspectors etc.

For instance the first contract BW got almost did not materialize due to heavy Bond that was required for "DB Coverage Act" insurance.The hyperbole on the "DL" was depending on which swinging Dick @ BW I talked w/ it was between 10-20 mil for the bond up front.

A couple of questions thrown your way, given your unique perspective. Are the rules and regs failing to protect personal property and the lawfully held assets of businesses of all types? Are the law abiding entities hamstrung by government bureaucracy while little or nothing is being done to stop the criminal activity?

[VooDoo6Actual]

A couple of questions thrown your way, given your unique perspective. Are the rules and regs failing to protect personal property and the lawfully held assets of businesses of all types? Are the law abiding entities hamstrung by government bureaucracy while little or nothing is being done to stop the criminal activity?

yes.

yes.

[czydj]

yes.

yes.


I can't say I'm totally surprised...

[11B101ABN]

The Russians got it right.

Killing them is always preferable to apprehending them. Our Navy should take notes.

[CarlosDJackal]

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=5e2_1333668975

Its nice to see people taking matters into their own hands now. The Navy cant be everywhere at once.

Get some!! Although thinking that wooden pallets will provide any kind of protection is pretty naive.

It does look like they may have gotten the helmsman on that first skif. Good on them!!

[Raven Armament]

That may be, but I'd rather have a wimpy pallet in front of me than nothing.

[CarlosDJackal]

That may be, but I'd rather have a wimpy pallet in front of me than nothing.

True. At least it serves to mask their movement.