Q-Ships and Convoys

Post a reply

Confirmation code
Enter the code exactly as it appears. All letters are case insensitive.
BBCode is OFF
Smilies are OFF
Topic review
   

Expand view Topic review: Q-Ships and Convoys

Re: Q-Ships and Convoys

by chuck » Wed Oct 22, 2008 12:28 pm

Only near strait of Malacca, where the "convoy" is ad hoc, two or three ships than chance together travel together over the very short sea way. Nothing like an organized open sea convoy exists in South China Sea. The last time when real systematic convoys were seen, it was in the Persian Gulf during the late 1980s, when it took a substantial portion of Reagan's 600 ship navy to protect the tanker traffic.

Re: Q-Ships and Convoys

by Jack Ray » Wed Oct 22, 2008 7:33 am

chuck wrote:
Ultimo Tiger wrote:The simple answer to this problem is this........

Get the damn navy to protect the convoys. It surely cna't be that hard to have a DDG or two protecting them with the odd support ship?

It will take a lot more than a DDG or two to effectively protect such heavy volume of traffic over such an extensive area. Convoy is not practiceable because:

1. There arn't enough naval forces on hand even to protect the convoys.

2. There is a compelling reason why merchant ships don't form convoys just for the hell of it. Convoying is very expensive and create huge inefficiencies in the shipping business. Convoying merchant ships would force majority of the participants to operate at convoy speed, which is the speed of the slowest ship and altogether difference from most ship's own most economic speed. Thus convoying would hugely increase the fuel cost of shipping. To form convoys loaded ships must wait around for all participants to arrive. A ship waiting around is a ship that's not making money. But the crew still eats and need to be paid. Thus assembling convoys increase cost while decreasing the effective carrying capacity of the merchant fleet. With convoying ships must strive to depart their ports more or less at the same time, and arrive at their destination more or less at the same time, thus creating huge bottlenecks in the ports at both ends, thus further delaying loading and unloading, and creating further instances of ships sitting around not making money. All these also combined to make transportation slower, which reduces the rates that people with goods to ship would be inclined to pay, thus furthering crimping the profit in the shipping business. Taken all together, effective convoying would probably cost the shipping industry all together many times more than just paying off an odd pirate or two once every few weeks and accept a increase in insurance premiums. This doesn't even touch the question of who is to pay for the naval escorts? Tax payers or the shipping industry?
I thought that convoys were commonly used in the South China Sea to protect against the pirates there.

Jack

Re: Q-Ships and Convoys

by chuck » Tue Oct 21, 2008 4:26 pm

In the end, the most effective, not to mention cost effective, way of dealing with piracy issue is undoubtedly to substantially improve the governance and administration of the land from which the pirates came.

Re: Q-Ships and Convoys

by chuck » Tue Oct 21, 2008 3:58 pm

Ultimo Tiger wrote:The simple answer to this problem is this........

Get the damn navy to protect the convoys. It surely cna't be that hard to have a DDG or two protecting them with the odd support ship?

It will take a lot more than a DDG or two to effectively protect such heavy volume of traffic over such an extensive area. Convoy is not practiceable because:

1. There arn't enough naval forces on hand even to protect the convoys.

2. There is a compelling reason why merchant ships don't form convoys just for the hell of it. Convoying is very expensive and create huge inefficiencies in the shipping business. Convoying merchant ships would force majority of the participants to operate at convoy speed, which is the speed of the slowest ship and altogether difference from most ship's own most economic speed. Thus convoying would hugely increase the fuel cost of shipping. To form convoys loaded ships must wait around for all participants to arrive. A ship waiting around is a ship that's not making money. But the crew still eats and need to be paid. Thus assembling convoys increase cost while decreasing the effective carrying capacity of the merchant fleet. With convoying ships must strive to depart their ports more or less at the same time, and arrive at their destination more or less at the same time, thus creating huge bottlenecks in the ports at both ends, thus further delaying loading and unloading, and creating further instances of ships sitting around not making money. All these also combined to make transportation slower, which reduces the rates that people with goods to ship would be inclined to pay, thus furthering crimping the profit in the shipping business. Taken all together, effective convoying would probably cost the shipping industry all together many times more than just paying off an odd pirate or two once every few weeks and accept a increase in insurance premiums. This doesn't even touch the question of who is to pay for the naval escorts? Tax payers or the shipping industry?

Re: Q-Ships and Convoys

by Lesforan » Tue Oct 21, 2008 1:51 pm

With all the international armada of ships off Somalia now, it didn't stop the pirates from hijacking an Indian ship yesterday with 13 crew.

Maybe if actual convoys were formed up, with ships arranged to mutually support each other with covering fire.
Something like the Allied bomber formations in WWII.

Re: Q-Ships and Convoys

by Ultimo Tiger » Tue Oct 21, 2008 1:39 pm

The simple answer to this problem is this........

Get the damn navy to protect the convoys. It surely cna't be that hard to have a DDG or two protecting them with the odd support ship?

Re: Q-Ships and Convoys

by chuck » Tue Oct 21, 2008 1:01 pm

I guess we will have to disagree about BW. Democratic civilized societies have no place for those who are not strictly governed by the rules civil societies chooses to use to govern its own legitimate agent of violence, yet empowered one way or another to inflict the high degree of violence. That its roll may contained members who belonged to a legitimate, UCMJ governed and duly supervised special force is neither here nor there. They are no longer members of that force. They are no longer governed by UCMJ. The former status which gives their true personal motives the benefit of doubt does not apply anymore, and their subsequent conduct can not but crystallize that doubt into certainty. Beyond the fact that the very existence of outfits like BW calls into question the judgment and legitimacy of a civil government that allowed it and protected it, BW itself has also demonstrated that it has little notion of civil society. They are civilians who set themselves up high from whence they can spray machine gun fire down upon other civilians, and they expect to be able to do this with little supervision and be paid handsomely for it. They are pirates now whatever their service record said about their past.

Re: Q-Ships and Convoys

by Lesforan » Mon Oct 20, 2008 6:15 pm

Chuck,

I cannot agree with your assessment of BW, but you do have the right idea of what is needed to eliminate pirates. Their infrastructure ashore has to be destroyed, in addition to their vessels.

What would probably work as well as anything to put a stop to it would be for the shipping companies to refuse to pay ransom.

It reminds me of one of the early uses of our Navy and Marines, the elimination of the Tripoli pirates. That situation involved crews held for ransom, too.

Re: Q-Ships and Convoys

by chuck » Mon Oct 20, 2008 3:15 pm

BTW, keep in mind the great pirate scourge of the past were not eradicated by Q-ships or aggressive patrols. They were eliminated when the pirates lost control over the land from which they sailed.

Re: Q-Ships and Convoys

by chuck » Mon Oct 20, 2008 3:12 pm

Ultimo Tiger wrote:Maybe the crews of ships should just be armed? I mean, attacking a container ship with a crew all armed with machien guns doesn't sound too much fun to me :(
1. RPGs cost $25 in an African flea market and is more intimidating then a few automatic weapons used by untrained crews.

2. How many hired Ukrainian or Philippino crews are really willing to put their lives on line for the security of their ships and cargo when very few of those crews captured by pirates actually died?

Re: Q-Ships and Convoys

by Ultimo Tiger » Mon Oct 20, 2008 3:08 pm

Maybe the crews of ships should just be armed? I mean, attacking a container ship with a crew all armed with machien guns doesn't sound too much fun to me :(

Re: Q-Ships and Convoys

by chuck » Mon Oct 20, 2008 3:01 pm

Incidentally, the sort of pirates we see off the horn of Africa uses equipment that cost next to nothing, rides are things that barely qualify as boats, and hit and run in such a way that it is impossible to guaranty complete security to nearby shipping without impossibly large naval presence or moving the shipping lanes out of range.

What is amounts to is: 1. Entry barrier to piracy is practically non-existent. 2. Pirating will always enjoy some prospect of success. For people with 1 in 2 chance of starving to death or dying due to lawlessness on land, 1 in 3 chance of running into a Q-ship at sea seems pretty good especially if they have 2 in 3 chance of making a life-time's wage in one afternoon of violence. (incidentally, the chance of making a decade's wage in a few month of exhilarating violence also seem to be what motives most BW thugs) What this means is unless you can provide security from lawlessness and a general means of subsistence on land superior to what can be obtained at sea by piracy, you will never eradicate piracy no matter what big words you use and what dire threat you throw around.

So some sort of presence on land, and ability to administer, or at least strongly influence the administration of, the coast near the pirate zone, is the real solution to piracy, not Q-ships and BW goon squads at sea.

Re: Q-Ships and Convoys

by Lesforan » Mon Oct 20, 2008 2:58 pm

You guys certainly have a low opinion of Blackwater.

This company is made up of former special forces members who have decided they would rather get paid well for putting their lives at risk. They are contractors, contracted to our government.

I think it is insulting to equate them with pirates.

Re: Q-Ships and Convoys

by chuck » Mon Oct 20, 2008 2:35 pm

The only differences between BW and pirates is simply BW is slightly more disciplined in the commission of thuggery, and by mischance enjoys the protection of a recognized government, nothing else. The only legitimate use of outfits like Blackwater is as cannon fodder when regular troops casualties can not be accepted. The condition of their use would be a guaranty that they would be all killed in the process so that when their usefulness is ended, not many of them would be left to plague the world with their own ends. So I have no problem with sending BW against pirates so long as we can ensure BW is more or less also wiped out when all the pirates are killed.

Re: Q-Ships and Convoys

by Ultimo Tiger » Sun Oct 19, 2008 11:35 am

Keep BW but make them a millitary thing with the US army having control over it just to make sure they don't "overstep" their authority.

And if they do, arrest them and shoot them for treason.

Re: Q-Ships and Convoys

by Gerarddm » Sun Oct 19, 2008 9:20 am

I agree wholeheartedly with Bob B. When they advertise for new cadres for civil control in the wake of Hurricane Gustav ( as they did on their web site), it's more than time to wonder where this Praetorian Guard owes its loyalty. As far as I am concerned, these guys are a clear and present danger, and the putative Black Shirts of the right wing in this country. I wish there was legal way to disband them. There is no reason for them to exist.

Re: Q-Ships and Convoys

by Lesforan » Sat Oct 18, 2008 9:53 am

I can understand Bob's sentiments, but the fact is that Blackwater and the military are solidly interlocked (consider the relationship between the two at Ft. Bragg). The classic use of mercenaries is to tackle jobs too politically sensitive for the official military. I believe there is a practical use for such people.

For fast relief of pirates, I spell it CIWS.

Re: Q-Ships and Convoys

by Jack Ray » Sat Oct 18, 2008 9:43 am

bengtsson wrote:
Lesforan wrote:Yesterday, Blackwater Associates offered their services (for a hefty price, no doubt) to protect these ships. This offer included possible use of their own ship.

A merchant ship packed with these heavily-armed operatives would certainly reduce the number of pirates in the area.

There is an extensive discussion of this situation going on now in the Bismarck-Class Forum.
My son in law dealt with the blackwater guys over in Iraq. If the task is shooting up civilians, then they are the best to hire. Of course if you want to stop the Pirate attacks, and do it like real men, You send in the USN to do the job.
As a taxpayer, every blackwater thug taken out, is one less I have to pay for. I will not quote what some combat soldiers I know say about their experiences with blackwater and the other contractors in Iraq. But no tears are shed when a few get taken out.
The blackwater operations should be shut down and only sworn defenders of the constitution should do the work of our nations defence. By that I mean Sailors, Soldiers, Marines and Airmen. I loath the greedy blackwater thugs.

Bob B.
I agree. Pirates should be shot on sight and clearing the sea of pirates is the job of navies and coast guards.

Jack

Re: Q-Ships and Convoys

by Ultimo Tiger » Sat Oct 18, 2008 9:27 am

Being a mercenary isn't illegal.

Besides it isn't the Constitution they'll be defending is it?

Re: Q-Ships and Convoys

by bengtsson » Sat Oct 18, 2008 8:04 am

Lesforan wrote:Yesterday, Blackwater Associates offered their services (for a hefty price, no doubt) to protect these ships. This offer included possible use of their own ship.

A merchant ship packed with these heavily-armed operatives would certainly reduce the number of pirates in the area.

There is an extensive discussion of this situation going on now in the Bismarck-Class Forum.
My son in law dealt with the blackwater guys over in Iraq. If the task is shooting up civilians, then they are the best to hire. Of course if you want to stop the Pirate attacks, and do it like real men, You send in the USN to do the job.
As a taxpayer, every blackwater thug taken out, is one less I have to pay for. I will not quote what some combat soldiers I know say about their experiences with blackwater and the other contractors in Iraq. But no tears are shed when a few get taken out.
The blackwater operations should be shut down and only sworn defenders of the constitution should do the work of our nations defence. By that I mean Sailors, Soldiers, Marines and Airmen. I loath the greedy blackwater thugs.

Bob B.

Top