Ships should arm themselves Tom Smith

I agree we should smack down the pirates.  But I think what is going on here is that the shippers are holding out for the various navies to step in and protect them.  But that would be unnecessary and inefficient.  These pirates are not particularly well armed.  They have AK-47s and RPGs mostly, it sounds like.  A half dozen former SEALs with some shoulder fired rockets, such as Stingers perhaps, and some .50 calibre machine guns would keep off the bad guys in speed boats nicely.

I think the issue is economics.  Sea going mercenaries would cost probably about $1000 per man per day.  Blackwater I've read charges the USG about $950/day for security details per man.  Figure ten on a boat, and it starts to be a close call whether it is cheaper to hire security or just take a trip around the horn.  Plus I suppose there would be insurance issues if your hired guns ended up blowing an overly friendly Australian pleasure craft out of the water, or something like that.  But in any event, private security would have to be much cheaper than sending any navy in, as well as more effective.

Comments

[JohnS]

Stingers are ground to air - see
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/stinger.htm

but I think that's generally the right idea. More likely the M136 AT4 -
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/at4.htm

Effective to 300 meters, about $1500 each.

Piracy was traditionally a rather dangerous business; a return to some traditions seems in order.

[Mark L]

Cheaper still would be for the US Navy to provide armed guard crews to American-flagged vessels in hazardous waters. At no cost to the shipper. This was done during WWII, for example.

Of course the key is "American-flagged." You know -- paying American taxes, etc. Of course other nations could offer the same service to ships that are nationally flagged. India, South Korea, or Egypt would be examples. They could do well by doing good.

[DWPittelli]

I think the .50 cal machine gun (or even a .30 cal) would be a better bet than an unguided anti-tank rocket, against moving unarmored speedboats.

[Letalis Maximus, Esq.]

Ma Deuce is a wonderful piece of ordnance. However, the modern and better weapon for the purpose is this one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M242_Bushmaster

[David Knights]

A .50 cal. outdistances both an RPG and an AK-47 by a considerable distance. Only a couple per ship would be necessary with some M-16s as back up. The first time the pirates have to pay a price for attempting to board a ship will cause them to think twice about doing so in the future.

[geekWithA.45]

Whatever happened to the old tradition of a ship's armory? I should think the contents of the average American gunowner's gun safes would be sufficient to the task of repelling boarders, and if you enhanced it with a couple of Ma Deuce, you'd be able to prevent the boarding entirely.

An AR-15, a handgun, a pump shotgun and 1000 rds of ammo can be had easily for less than $2k per man in any US gunshop. (Well, at pre-Obama prices, anyway....)

Merchant mariners are already well trained, and therefore proven trainable. Adding gun proficiency and elementary tactics to the mix is doable, and I should think the crews would be motivated.

Companies and governments may or may not pay ransom, but nothing says "I care" like providing a well stocked armory.

[Matt Groom]

One or two men standing on deck with conspicuous looking 7.62 rifles, say M-14/M1As, would do an awful lot to deter any pirates. If they were functional rifles (note that even realistic fakes would do the trick), and had decent optics on them, then a crew of 6 guards could protect even the largest ships and be able to easily take out hostiles who attempted to board from smaller vessels. It's not like they can sink a super tanker with an RPG, the danger is in them boarding, and a .308 will remind you of just how difficult that is in a real hurry.

[Tribal]

If I understand correctly, the pirates' strategy is to shoot up the bridge of the ship and force them to lower a ladder, as the pirate boats can't do anything otherwise.

Why not just armor the bridge? Get whatever we've up-armored the Strykers with and fashion cages around the bridge of the ship. You now have a ship resistant to RPG and small arms fire. Even if this solution isn't foolproof, it can probably buy enough time for the ship's crew to radio for assistance and have some aircraft respond.

Especially in that part of the world, how much could it cost to buy Soviet/Russian machine guns and 10,000 rounds of ammunition, then weld mounting points on the ship to attach them on pivots? Buy super-cheap periscopes (like were used in WWI trenches) and let the crew of the ship man the guns from behind protection of the hull. Pirates come, the crew attaches the machine guns and returns fire with impunity while the newly-resistant bridge holds out until the pirates give up or aircraft support arrives.

[Mike T]

How about the shipping companies train their personnel in the use of these weapons? I bet they'd do it if they got a 20% hazardous duty pay when going through known pirate waters.

[section9]

Free Enterprise, people, and I'm not talking Star Trek, here. "Letters of Marque and Reprisal", issued by the Congress, to privateers under the American flag and subject to U.S. law and regulation. Leaves the Navy to undertake more important matters, such as the Iranians.

What do you want to bet that there's Iranian money underwriting the pirates?