Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
PSA
Member Login

Site Notices
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 11/19/2008 8:17:51 AM EDT
Is it even possible to sink such a modern ship, I dont imagine that the Somali pirates took on a few hundred pounds of Sentex to sink the ship.



I really cannot imagine the House of Saud not authorizing a military action to take the ship over.
Link Posted: 11/19/2008 8:21:08 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/19/2008 8:21:41 AM EDT by SuperJanitor]
What I want to know is, where do these assholes think they're gonna go after they get their rasnsom and leave the tanker?
Link Posted: 11/19/2008 8:22:57 AM EDT
Originally Posted By SuperJanitor:
What I want to know is, where do these assholes think they're gonna go after they get their rasnsom and leave the tanker?


umm, somalia?

Link Posted: 11/19/2008 8:24:17 AM EDT
I just cannot imagine that a ship designed as such with so many bulkheads and such would even be able to be sunk short of a salvo of Silkworms being launched against it.




Send in the black hats and hang the bastards heads from the mast.
Link Posted: 11/19/2008 8:26:13 AM EDT
Originally Posted By SuperJanitor:
What I want to know is, where do these assholes think they're gonna go after they get their rasnsom and leave the tanker?



Which leads to this. How did this happen anyway? Why are there not deck guns, RPG's and such on these tankers and freighters? Any boat that fails to identify itself and it's intentions would be be considered hostile and fired on within 500 yards. WTF? Are these ships the new "gun free zones"? "For the children"? WTF?
Link Posted: 11/19/2008 8:27:53 AM EDT
Originally Posted By V-Match:
Originally Posted By SuperJanitor:
What I want to know is, where do these assholes think they're gonna go after they get their rasnsom and leave the tanker?


umm, somalia?




Umm, there just gonna walk away? The authorities are going to cover their eye's and count to 100?
Link Posted: 11/19/2008 8:29:17 AM EDT
What happened to the Russian cargo ship with the 30 T-72M tanks onboard?
Link Posted: 11/19/2008 8:36:48 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/19/2008 8:37:24 AM EDT by RabidAngel]
Originally Posted By Blackmagic94:
What happened to the Russian cargo ship with the 30 T-72M tanks onboard?



It is still being held.

This is a more complex problem than it seems. I understand the difficulty in patrolling vast open waters and 21,000+ freighters travelling through that area annually.

What I don't understand is this; once a freighter has been siezed, why not drop a special forces team onto the deck and put the pirates down? That way, you don't have to find them on the open water. The Somali government has already said, in effect, "Do whatever you need to do."  So... just do it. Waste the fuckers and call it a day.
Link Posted: 11/19/2008 8:37:06 AM EDT
By international treaty,  the seas are the ultimate "gun free zone" other than Naval vessels.  It's technically illegal to have guns on ships.


Our President could get around that by issuing Letters of Marque And Reprisal for purposes
of self-defense, to any ship or captain he chooses to issue them to.   That ship would then
technically be a privateer, or,  in common parlance, a pirate ship,  except that it would only
be a pirate if attacking other ships for profit or reprisal.  


I say that every ship should be permitted defensive armament.  It's the only rational answer in a world that actually does have pirates in it.


No guns on ships has worked well enough where there have been no pirates,  but where
there ARE pirates...it doesn't fly.   Nothing unusual or groundbreaking there!


CJ
Link Posted: 11/19/2008 8:39:17 AM EDT
Originally Posted By SuperJanitor:
Originally Posted By V-Match:
Originally Posted By SuperJanitor:
What I want to know is, where do these assholes think they're gonna go after they get their rasnsom and leave the tanker?


umm, somalia?




Umm, there just gonna walk away? The authorities are going to cover their eye's and count to 100?


dude, there are no "authorities" in somalia, and there haven't been for well over a decade.

blackhawk down ring a bell?

Link Posted: 11/19/2008 8:39:19 AM EDT
Originally Posted By SuperJanitor:
Originally Posted By SuperJanitor:
What I want to know is, where do these assholes think they're gonna go after they get their rasnsom and leave the tanker?



Which leads to this. How did this happen anyway? Why are there not deck guns, RPG's and such on these tankers and freighters? Any boat that fails to identify itself and it's intentions would be be considered hostile and fired on within 500 yards. WTF? Are these ships the new "gun free zones"? "For the children"? WTF?


I believe it is against International Maritime Law to arm civilian cargo ships and their crews.

Link Posted: 11/19/2008 8:39:24 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Blackmagic94:
Is it even possible to sink such a modern ship, I dont imagine that the Somali pirates took on a few hundred pounds of Sentex to sink the ship.



I really cannot imagine the House of Saud not authorizing a military action to take the ship over.




Step 1: Light contents of cargo tanks on fire

Step 2: Motorboat to safety (optional in some countries)

Step 3: Videotape burning boat sinking; superimpose rising oil futures later
Link Posted: 11/19/2008 8:42:06 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/19/2008 8:42:22 AM EDT by Plumbata]
This tanker is supposed to be fully loaded, right?

If so it would look like it's sinking already.  Open the seacocks in the engine room and leave.
Link Posted: 11/19/2008 8:42:25 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/19/2008 8:48:30 AM EDT by johnny_cargo]
Originally Posted By Blackmagic94:
What happened to the Russian cargo ship with the 30 T-72M tanks onboard?


yes as mentioned above, and according to an AP article today, pirates still hold the MV Faina.  It appears they offloaded some light arms some time ago.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MV_Faina
Link Posted: 11/19/2008 8:46:10 AM EDT
Originally Posted By cmjohnson:
By international treaty,  the seas are the ultimate "gun free zone" other than Naval vessels.  It's technically illegal to have guns on ships.


our resident uscg freerider04 would dispute that statement.  i'm surprised he hasn't chimed in yet.
Link Posted: 11/19/2008 8:48:50 AM EDT
Of course it's possible.  WTF, it's a ship.  Flood it and set the oil ablaze to prevent any attempt to repair said hole or opened valves.  If fire could sink the WTCs, I can only imagine it could help sink a steel ship.



That said, I'm not so sure these Somali pirates came equiped to perform a sinking.
Link Posted: 11/19/2008 8:50:46 AM EDT
Originally Posted By KnobCreek:
Of course it's possible.  WTF, it's a ship.  Flood it and set the oil ablaze to prevent any attempt to repair said hole or opened valves.  If fire could sink the WTCs, I can only imagine it could help sink a steel ship.

That said, I'm not so sure these Somali pirates came equiped to perform a sinking.


understatement of the day!

Link Posted: 11/19/2008 8:59:57 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/19/2008 9:01:20 AM EDT by ar15hookem]
It looks like no one reads or remembers history.

WW1 freighters were being sunk by surfaced u boats(prefered german method since torpedoes were very unreliable at that time).

Brit's answer- heavily armed q boat. Coverted freighter that had hiden canons and machine guns. Made the sub's life more interesting because they never knew if it was a q boat.

Why not have a half dozen freighter's converted to this type of configuraton and just sail along the somalia cost.

Pirate boat pulls up, freighter deck gear lowers, up pops a vulcan canon and burrrppppp no pirates. Reload and repeat.

Right now the pirates have very little incentive to stop.
Link Posted: 11/19/2008 9:10:12 AM EDT
An iceberg would put it down for the count.

Just gotta find one off the coast of Somalia.
Link Posted: 11/19/2008 9:24:39 AM EDT
Originally Posted By V-Match:
Originally Posted By cmjohnson:
By international treaty,  the seas are the ultimate "gun free zone" other than Naval vessels.  It's technically illegal to have guns on ships.


our resident uscg freerider04 would dispute that statement.  i'm surprised he hasn't chimed in yet.


He's been in every thread about the pirates re-iterating the point.
Link Posted: 11/19/2008 9:25:36 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/19/2008 9:27:06 AM EDT by Jarhead_22]
Link Posted: 11/19/2008 9:28:29 AM EDT
Put it this way: An RPG is probably the heaviest armament the pirates have at their disposal and no RPG could sink a super tanker. Heck, not even dozens of hits could sink one.
Link Posted: 11/19/2008 9:29:04 AM EDT
Here is my idea I posted a couple days ago (in jest) in another forum to solve the problem. Basically you create a new TV reality show. You may have seen the show Bait Car, well my show would be called Bait Ship. You set a freighter out into the riskiest waters where piracy is running high. The crew of the freighter is made up of Navy Seals (retired). You have cameras all over the ship to film the action. Should be better than Pay-Per-View UFC fighting. First you capture all the action of the bad guys getting wasted. Next for the grand finale you film an Ecocet, Harpoon, or KH-35 taking out the pirate vessel as they desperately try to escape. Cost of the operation is covered by TV revenues.

On a more serious note, this year there have been about 90 ships attacked and about $90,000,000 paid in ransom. The pirates get paid the ransom and the ships and crew are released. Easy money for them. The owners of the ships don't want to risk losing the lives of their crew and having their ship scuttled. A million dollars to get the ship and crew back is not worth the risk to them. But with that giving in the pirates are now getting bolder and going out further, as evidenced by the capture of the Saudi supertanker 450 nautical miles off the coast, a distance once thought safe from the pirates. When the cargo alone is worth $100,000,000 you got to know there is a lot of pressure to just pay the ransom to get it back. But we all know what happens when we start paying terrorists ransom. It simply encourages more of the same activity.

I'd like to see the bad guys get wasted, but there isn't a easy solution at the moment.
Link Posted: 11/19/2008 9:29:30 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/19/2008 9:31:49 AM EDT by Combat_Jack]
Interesting.
Link Posted: 11/19/2008 9:32:22 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Wobblin-Goblin:
Put it this way: An RPG is probably the heaviest armament the pirates have at their disposal and no RPG could sink a super tanker. Heck, not even dozens of hits could sink one.


I am going to go out on a limb and say they have themselves some explosives.  Offensive armament is an RPG at max.  I would not doubt that they have some C4, etc.
Link Posted: 11/19/2008 9:40:19 AM EDT
Originally Posted By V-Match:
Originally Posted By KnobCreek:
Of course it's possible.  WTF, it's a ship.  Flood it and set the oil ablaze to prevent any attempt to repair said hole or opened valves.  If fire could sink the WTCs, I can only imagine it could help sink a steel ship.

That said, I'm not so sure these Somali pirates came equiped to perform a sinking.


understatement of the day!



Every ship has seacocks.

Link Posted: 11/19/2008 9:40:59 AM EDT
Originally Posted By smokycity:
Originally Posted By SuperJanitor:
Originally Posted By SuperJanitor:
What I want to know is, where do these assholes think they're gonna go after they get their rasnsom and leave the tanker?



Which leads to this. How did this happen anyway? Why are there not deck guns, RPG's and such on these tankers and freighters? Any boat that fails to identify itself and it's intentions would be be considered hostile and fired on within 500 yards. WTF? Are these ships the new "gun free zones"? "For the children"? WTF?


I believe it is against International Maritime Law to arm civilian cargo ships and their crews.



Not entirely true.  While the IMO forbids arming crews, there is a well known loophole that allows arming crews IF the owners desire it.  Why don't they?  If you ever spent time around merchant ships and dealt with the crews, you'd understand the reticence in giving those folks weapons of any kind.  I think the owners would rather pay a ransom then leave themselves open to the liablity involved in arming those folks and dealing with the aftermath.
Link Posted: 11/19/2008 9:48:07 AM EDT
Why can't they train the crews to defend their vessels?
Link Posted: 11/19/2008 9:49:32 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Bklyn_Irish:
Why can't they train the crews to defend their vessels?


1. They can't carry effective weapons like machine guns,

2. They aren't paid nearly enough.
Link Posted: 11/19/2008 9:51:55 AM EDT
How long before the pirate mother ship has t-72 turrets on it?
Link Posted: 11/19/2008 9:56:04 AM EDT
I read that the majority of crew being held by the pirates on these ships are from countries like Pakistan, Philippines and India because Westerners don't want to do it anymore, because of the long stretches away from land, the boredom etc.

If they made weapons handling and fighting pirates part of the job description I'm sure their recruitment would increase, I might even be tempted.
Link Posted: 11/19/2008 9:56:12 AM EDT
The other half of the scam is capturing oil rigs, they'll board them, stage a sit-in and demand money to leave.  They get a briefcase full of cash, climb down to their boats and come back a few weeks later to do it again.

Kharn
Link Posted: 11/19/2008 9:59:20 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/19/2008 10:01:12 AM EDT by PilotSmith]
Originally Posted By Blackmagic94:
Is it even possible to sink such a modern ship, I dont imagine that the Somali pirates took on a few hundred pounds of Sentex to sink the ship.



I really cannot imagine the House of Saud not authorizing a military action to take the ship over.


Fire safety provisions for tankers are very stringent since the danger of fire on board ships carrying oil is much higher than for regular freighter. However, in an oil tanker it is possible with just a spark to set one on fire. You don't need explosives to set one on fire and sink it.  You even have to be careful that the tanks without oil are filled with inert (non-explosive) gas to prevent explosions. While there are systems to put out fires, they can be disabled by the pirates and they can easily light up an oil tanker. Crude oil is very flamable and water and crude oil don't go together very well. Check out this crude oil fire:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DhVXnNvaudQ

Watch how easily it lights up:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E_zSP-vEJYw

Actually a burning tanker off the coast of Somalia could be a good thing. Imagine 2,000,000 barrels of crude all around the coast of Somalia... Might be a big enough ecological disaster to starve the rest of the people in that hell hole out of existence.
Link Posted: 11/19/2008 10:16:39 AM EDT
Originally Posted By cmjohnson:
By international treaty,  the seas are the ultimate "gun free zone" other than Naval vessels.  It's technically illegal to have guns on ships.


Our President could get around that by issuing Letters of Marque And Reprisal for purposes
of self-defense, to any ship or captain he chooses to issue them to.   That ship would then
technically be a privateer, or,  in common parlance, a pirate ship,  except that it would only
be a pirate if attacking other ships for profit or reprisal.  


I say that every ship should be permitted defensive armament.  It's the only rational answer in a world that actually does have pirates in it.


No guns on ships has worked well enough where there have been no pirates,  but where
there ARE pirates...it doesn't fly.   Nothing unusual or groundbreaking there!


CJ



What year was this passed?
Link Posted: 11/19/2008 10:20:20 AM EDT
If it floats it'll sink.






And where's piccolo when you need him?



Out to sea?
Link Posted: 11/19/2008 10:36:52 AM EDT
Yes you could sink that tanker and you can do it all from the pump room.
Link Posted: 11/19/2008 10:42:54 AM EDT
Problem easily solved.  We just lack the will to kill people.  USN, UAV, Hellfire.  Award a missile to any vessel approaching within three miles of shipping.  Of course, after will sink a boat full of Nuns and children sight-seeing tankers, that will be the end of that.

I give it six months before they start sinking them.
Link Posted: 11/19/2008 10:45:27 AM EDT
Originally Posted By ar15hookem:
It looks like no one reads or remembers history.

WW1 freighters were being sunk by surfaced u boats(prefered german method since torpedoes were very unreliable at that time).

Brit's answer- heavily armed q boat. Coverted freighter that had hiden canons and machine guns. Made the sub's life more interesting because they never knew if it was a q boat.


You must not remember your history lessons.


Q-ships were not effective during WW1 or WW2.

In WW1 Q-ships ranked below mines in U-boat sinkings.

In WW2 the q-ship program was stopped by 1943 after a very unsuccessful run.

Av.
Link Posted: 11/19/2008 10:45:33 AM EDT
Originally Posted By _DR:

Every ship has seacocks.





That's what she said.
Link Posted: 11/19/2008 10:45:44 AM EDT
she is made of steel, I assure you, it will sink

I think I heard that in a movie..........  Yea, right after they hit an iceberg.


Putting that baby on the bottom would not be too difficult.  All you need is  a small leak and time.



Link Posted: 11/19/2008 10:46:35 AM EDT
nah, they'll never do it
Link Posted: 11/19/2008 10:51:48 AM EDT
Originally Posted By vatopa:
 All you need is  a small leak and time.







Eh, it's not one big floating ball.

One leak would MAYBE flood a single compartment.

That leaves 100+ more to deal with.
Link Posted: 11/19/2008 10:53:55 AM EDT
Yes, if they get some bungee cord and the guy with the peg-leg.

Link Posted: 11/19/2008 10:57:45 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Bryan71:
nah, they'll never do it


What, you mean those turd-world geniuses who are playing pirate already?  AQ pays them enough, they would happily sink a tanker.
Link Posted: 11/19/2008 11:05:39 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Tromatic:
Originally Posted By Bryan71:
nah, they'll never do it


What, you mean those turd-world geniuses who are playing pirate already?  AQ pays them enough, they would happily sink a tanker.



i seriously doubt aq could pay them more than the insurance companies do.  plus that would fuck up the target of opportunity game totally, and that's what these guys leverage to their advantage.  

ain't gonna happen...
Link Posted: 11/19/2008 11:07:52 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Chaingun:
Originally Posted By cmjohnson:
By international treaty,  the seas are the ultimate "gun free zone" other than Naval vessels.  It's technically illegal to have guns on ships.


Our President could get around that by issuing Letters of Marque And Reprisal for purposes
of self-defense, to any ship or captain he chooses to issue them to.   That ship would then
technically be a privateer, or,  in common parlance, a pirate ship,  except that it would only
be a pirate if attacking other ships for profit or reprisal.  


I say that every ship should be permitted defensive armament.  It's the only rational answer in a world that actually does have pirates in it.


No guns on ships has worked well enough where there have been no pirates,  but where
there ARE pirates...it doesn't fly.   Nothing unusual or groundbreaking there!


CJ



What year was this passed?





I'm not clear on all the details of maritime law...far from it.  But I've been told by people i usually trust that this is the case.    Except that I should clarify:  Ordinary small arms are OK, at least with some countries but not others,  but the international law forbids larger
weapons on non-military vessels.  I gather that crew-served weapons are off limits.

Again...I'm not sure about this.  It's what I've heard and it could be wrong. I haven't really researched it yet.

CJ
Link Posted: 11/19/2008 11:22:42 AM EDT
The pirates threat isn't that they will sink the boat, its that they will kill the crew.

If crews learn that their employer won't pay the ransom, crews will start refusing to work in certain areas.

Link Posted: 11/19/2008 11:29:51 AM EDT
They want the T-72 tanks, but every time they put one on one of their inflatable boats it sinks.

Link Posted: 11/19/2008 11:35:12 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/19/2008 11:42:16 AM EDT by freerider04]
Originally Posted By cmjohnson:
By international treaty,  the seas are the ultimate "gun free zone" other than Naval vessels.  It's technically illegal to have guns on ships.




No it isn't.

I know there are at least 2 civilian ships with 30mm cannons aboard.  
Australian Customs leased civilian vessels, with civilian crews and mounted .50's on them for thier Customs officers to ride around on.
Israeli ships have armories on board, with some very interesting toys.
I've been on a chem ship with a PKM on board.
MSC is leasing some OSVs that have M60's on board, soon to be .50s, soon after 25mm.  Civilian crew, civilian ship, military gunners.
I know there are other ships with mounted weapons as well, just can't bring them to mind right now.



Link Posted: 11/19/2008 11:45:54 AM EDT
And to answer the original question:

Yes, it is possible for them to sink one.  It's not effective though, since it would take a while, and they would lose out on the ransom money.

The companies will always pay the ransom.  They can't afford to lose the cargo and ship.  They can barely afford to wait as long as they have been to pay ransoms.

The pirates aren't that dumb.  They know sinking or damaging ships or cargo and killing crew and officers means dead pirates.
Link Posted: 11/19/2008 11:46:48 AM EDT
A Willie Pete grenade would work wonders on all that oil.
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top