NEW: Follow the Editorial Staff on
StrategyPage Twitter Link

GROUND COMBAT +

AIR COMBAT +

NAVAL OPERATIONS +

SPECIAL OPERATIONS +

HUMAN FACTORS +

SPECIAL WEAPONS +

WARFARE BY THE NUMBERS +

LOGISTICS +

TOOLS +


Visit StrategyPage's US Cavalry Store
Sea Transportation Article Index : Current 1999 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
 Latest
 News 		  Most
 Read 		  Most
 Commented		  Hot
 Topics

USN To The Rescue

August 11, 2008: On August 8th, a U.S. Navy amphibious ship, the USS Peleliu, while cruising off the north coast of Somalia, got a distress call from a merchant ship ten kilometers away. The merchantman was under attack by pirates in speed boats. The Peleliu promptly dispatched three armed helicopters, which caused the pirates to flee. The merchant ship suffered some damage from bullets, plus an RPG rocket that landed in the superstructure, but did not explode. 

This year, Somali pirates have shifted their operations to the far north, on the Gulf of Aden (which separates Somalia from Yemen, in southern Arabia). Over 80 percent of the pirate attacks are now taking place in the Gulf of Aden, where heavy Red Sea traffic provides a larger number of potential victims.

While other pirate plagued nations have navies and coast guards that can battle the piracy problem, Somalia is without any central government, or seagoing military forces. So the international community has been sending more and more warships to patrol the coast.

For the last three years, an international naval patrol, CTF 150 (Combined Task Force 150, operating out of Djibouti) has patrolled the entire 3,000 kilometer long coast. But with only about fifteen ships (from half a dozen nations), the CTF 150 has been  able to slow down the pirates, but not stop them. The USS Peleliu is not part of the patrol, but was just passing through the area. Fortunately,  the 39,000 ship normally carries about 30 helicopters, six Harrier jets, and a battalion of marines, so it had the means to deal with pirates.

Moreover, unless this coastal patrol force was willing to send troops ashore to kill or arrest the pirates in the land bases, the pirates will keep playing hide-and-seek with the naval patrols, and continue to attack ships and get away with it.

submit to reddit
Send Link to a Friend
Next Article NAVAL AIR: Unarmed Russians Come In Peace


Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title     Sort in Reverse Order Posted
sjdoc    Sea control ships   8/11/2008 2:56:28 PM
--
This incident would seem to imply that the U.S. Navy's amphibious assault assets, configured as sea control ships, are the ideal units around which to build and operate "an international naval patrol" such as CTF 150.
 
Even though their aviation assets are limited in number, range, and all-weather operational capability, these "gator freighters" and lesser navies' vessels of similar character (the HMS Ocean, Thailand's HTMS Chakri Naruebet, Spain's Juan Carlos I,  and the French Mistral types) could prove to be the most efficient and cost-effective warships upon which Western Civilization can base the extension of international law into those regions where the failed states of the Islamic world have fostered piracy and similar depravity.
 
--
 
Quote    Reply

FlyingDutchman       8/11/2008 6:59:56 PM
Would you mind sending overhere whatever it is what you're smoking?
 
 
If anything, using LPD's and other large amphibious warfare ships for pirate hunting is a sign how short of appropriate hulls Western navies are. A simple frigate with room for a helicopter to land could have done the same but faster and cheaper.
Mind you, this happens plenty in the real world; for example the Brits using HMS Ocean for anti-drugrunner operations in the Caribbean.
 
*irony on*
Yes, let's use a ship capable of carrying 600 marines into WWIII to take care of 15 pirates...
*irony off*
 
 IMHO this is the modern-day variant of sending a battleship after a torpedoboat. If people think I'm wrong, I'd be most interested.
 
Quote    Reply

VelocityVector    NederlanderAirborne   8/11/2008 7:42:22 PM

One helicopter vice three pirate vessels?  That's a weighty tasking.  What if your bird is grounded for some reason or other?  Then a frigate is incapable of fulfilling the mission, is what.  LPD with persistent UAV and other a/c constitutes an area free from pirates.  Plus LPD with UAV can in theory launch marine armor to stalk the pirates back to their lairs and destroy them there under sustained surviellance.  You could do a lot with an LPD given the task.  I wouldn't rule the platform out so casually.

v^2
 
Quote    Reply

ArtyEngineer       8/11/2008 8:49:07 PM
Firstly, LHA's dont float around on their own!!!!  The USS Peleliu is the Flag ship for the 15th MEU:
 which also includes the LPD USS Dubuque:
and the LSD USS Pearl Harbour:
There are other ships as well, but those three contain the bulk of the USMC assets.  Im surprised that the location of such a potent force has even been made public!!!
 
Quote    Reply

Brolan       8/11/2008 9:51:56 PM
Sounds like they need to setup a few old-fashioned Q-ships to make the pirates more cautious.
 
Quote    Reply

LB    No ships and orders not to interfere   8/12/2008 2:59:20 AM
Not only are the world's navies so short of ships to combat piracy but in the case of the RN they are under direct orders not to do anything even if they have a ship around.  It seems somebody pointed out that any pirates the RN takes into custody can then ask for asylum so the RN has been ordered to avoid that situation.  The whole situation is rather pathetic.  Since nobody wants to go ashore in Somalia to deal with the speedboats they are using the only real deterrent would be ROE's of shoot to kill and shoot to sink.
 
In any case the issue is not the specific platform but lack of naval patrol platforms and more importantly lack of will to deal with the situation.  

 
Quote    Reply

sjdoc    The need for places like Gitmo   8/12/2008 7:52:50 AM
--
Remarks LB: "Not only are the world's navies so short of ships to combat piracy but in the case of the [Royal Navy] they are under direct orders not to do anything even if they have a ship around.  It seems somebody pointed out that any pirates the RN takes into custody can then ask for asylum so the RN has been ordered to avoid that situation."
 
Such policies (and the political realities they address) confirm the need for distasteful and "controversial" facilities like the Guantanamo Bay detention camp, the existence of which tacitly acknowledges the inadequacies of presently extant civil judicial mechanisms for the address of issues like piracy on the high seas and similar violent crimes committed within the nominal jurisdictions of failed states such as exist in Somalia and Pakistan, and had existed in Taliban-dominated Afghanistan and immediately post-Ba'athist Iraq. 
 
Until international jurisprudence (which has long since gone over entirely to the Tranzi campaign against national sovereignity in general, representative democracy, individual rights, and government under constitutional rule of law) can be restored to a mechanism securing the protection of peoples' property in their lives, their liberties, and their goods - vital to the conduct of international commerce as well as simple travel between nations - it will be necessary for national command entities (NCEs) with an interest in the preservation of such properties and commerce to evade the courts of both international and domestic civil judiciaries in order to mitigate the hampering effects of jihadist, nonideologically criminal, and Tranzi "lawfare." 
 
Little though anyone might like it, places like Camp Delta are necessary if only to provide an alternative to rules of engagement limiting antipiracy operations rigidly to "Shoot-to-sink/Shoot-to-kill" doctrines.  Even were these not morally unconscionable, such doctrines would seriously hamper the gathering of intelligence, encourage resistance "to the death," and deprive commanders in the field of responsory flexibility. 
 
Because the corrupt and fundamentally pernicious Tranzi agenda has become - both de facto and de jure - the prevalent basis upon which public and diplomatic discussion of such issues must be undertaken in venues like the U.S. Congress and the United Nations, the very language of consideration forced upon us (under standards of "political correctness") is presently incompatible with a sane or honest public appreciation of this subject.  It may be that we are obliged to fall back upon the precedents and usages of those Western admiralty courts of the 17th, 18th, and 19th Centuries in which piracy cases were fully cognizable as felonies under the concept of universal jurisdiction, with such malefactors readily and uncontroversially recognized by sovereign states as hostis humani generis (enemies of humanity).
 
Which is, of course, how Tranzis are also correctly to be perceived.  But that's a matter for discussion in another context.
 
--
 
 
Quote    Reply

RockyMTNClimber    Solution for piracy..........   8/12/2008 11:37:39 AM
Use your Navy to Kill them. I believe that solution was arrived at about 1,000 years ago or more.
 
Worked then.....
 
Check Six
 
Rocky
 
Quote    Reply

FlyingDutchman       8/12/2008 2:16:39 PM

One helicopter vice three pirate vessels?  That's a weighty tasking.  What if your bird is grounded for some reason
or other?  Then a frigate is incapable of
fulfilling the mission, is what.  LPD
with persistent UAV and other a/c constitutes an area free from pirates.  Plus LPD with UAV can in theory launch marine
armor to stalk the pirates back to their lairs and destroy them there under sustained surviellance.  You could do a lot with an LPD given the task.  I wouldn't rule the platform out
so casually.


v^2
Firstly, one frigate versus 3 speedboats. I think I'd prefer to be on the side of the frigate, not the speedboats.
Secondly, frigates can also carry UAV's and have the advantage of being faster than a LPD.
Thirdly, instead of risking a huge & expensive ship with a large crew, you're only sending a single < 3000 ton ship into harm's way. 
 
I'm not doubting you could use an LPD, it's just not efficient.
BTW 'can in theory launch marine armor to stalk the pirates back to their lairs and destroy them there under sustained surviellance'. That's an asset looking for a purpose, not the other way around. 
I doubt a lot of amphibious landings on hostile shore happened the last few times these ships were used for anti-piracy.
At most they're going to need crew to man one RIB, which just as easily could have been launched from a frigate instead of a huge amphibious ship.  

Nice try, still not convinced this is wastefull. 
 
Quote    Reply

sjdoc    Why this fixation on tin cans?   8/12/2008 11:59:56 PM
--
Persists Flying Dutchman: 
 
"Firstly, one frigate versus 3 speedboats. I think I'd prefer to be on the side of the frigate, not the speedboats.
Secondly, frigates can also carry UAV's and have the advantage of being faster than a LPD.
Thirdly, instead of risking a huge & expensive ship with a large crew, you're only sending a single < 3000 ton ship into harm's way."
 
(1) One frigate, operating without the support of a sea control ship's aviation and command assets or some similar resources, is skosh power and backup when it comes to the job of securing a wide area against the sorts of pinprick raiding activities that constitute modern maritime piracy in the Indian Ocean and the narrower waters to the east.  Lacking the ability to maintain more than at most two helicopters in operation, such a "one frigate" patrol force is essentially without options when it comes to sustaining heavy rescue efforts and/or boarding operations and/or air-to-surface combat actions, whereas a sea control ship - even operating outside the context of a full amphibious readiness group (and without the need for the LPD and LSD assets mentioned above because despite the fact that the LHA and LHD "gator freighters" are called amphibious warfare vessels, their service in this context would not require them to participate in true amphibious offensive operations) - is in itself a far more capable operational element, with a far broader (and more sustainable) "footprint" than a small boy can possibly provide.
 
(2) A single frigate's ability to operate UAVs for surveillance or offensive purposes falls under the same relative limitation.
 
(3) Just what the hell gives you to think that an LHA or LHD configured to operate as a sea control ship is likely to be going directly "into harm's way" in the course of anti-piracy operations?  Admittedly, a frigate all on its lonesome would have to do so (say, for example, if "they're going to need crew to man one R[H]IB" and put it into the water close by a hijacked ship or a suspected pirate vessel), but a Wasp-class LHD would be able to rely not only upon the LAMPS III ASW helicopters of a frigate but also AH-1 gunships, a full suite of medium- and heavy-lift transport helicopters, AV-8B attack aircraft, and even LCUs and/or LCACs for surface-based boarding operations.  Which last can be conducted over-the-horizon.  RHIBs have their limitations.
 
And a sea control ship exerts both surveillance and combat power over a range far broader than that which might be serviced by "a single < 3000 ton ship," and will do the job with greater sustainability, both in terms of range, consumables, and crew fatigue impact.
 
An aircraft carrier - for any navy - must be considered a strategic asset, and it would be foolish to deploy such a vessel without the full protection of a carrier battle group.  Not to mention the fact that the mere presence of such a heavy hitter in any ocean area imposes a resonance of powerful significance in the context of international diplomatic relations.
 
Contrariwise, a sea control ship - whether a U.S. Navy "gator freighter" or one of the similar French, Thai, Spanish, or South Korean ships capable of being so configured and operated - is not only able to function effectively in this role (including the provision of a highly visible suppressive intimidation that both freelance and "quasigovernmental" maritime pirates must respect) but - without its full amphibious force projection capacity - also does little more than your "single < 3000 ton ship"  to raise the stakes in diplomatic exchanges between the nations of Civilization and the prickly kleptocracies of the third world's failed states.
 
--
 
Quote    Reply

FlyingDutchman    Maybe I like tin cans?   8/13/2008 5:53:35 AM
I'm still thinking sending amphibious assets, even a single LPD let alone several ships with escorts etc, is overkill.
That's why I suggested a frigate, it being smaller, cheaper and faster.
 
We're talking about 3 speedboats with at most 15 crew or so?
Probably also with one RPG launcher, as their target had a single hit by RPG.
Although I am a layman, I'd think that these men, probably under the command of warlord X or Y aren't exactly tourists, it would seem to me a single frigate would be more than capable enough to either kill or apprehend these guys.
 
regarding 1)
There's no need for heavy sea rescue operations, just like there is no need for marine armor to land on a hostile shore when doing anti-piracy. That larger footprint you mentioned I understand and that was exactly my point; it's not needed here.
It's useless to have jets and a MEU around, when the (international) political will to use them isn't there.
 
2)
No problem that a frigate's aerial component is small, with at most two helicopters and a very small UAV element.
It doesn't need to be big.
 
3)
In this operation (the stopping of 3 speedboats) you don't need AV-8B's, armor, AH-1's, heavy lift helicopters etc.
Ofcourse, it's nice to have them, but IMHO this is still overkill.
 
Regarding sustainability;
IMHO cheapest would be an agreement between several large seafaring nations (UK, USA, France, but also the smaller seafaring NATO members like Netherlands and Scandiniavia) to set up a pool of small ships which can relieve one another after a several months lasting tour.
I understand you'd need at least a few ships on station at the same time to encourage the Somalian pirates to quit or look for greener pastures on land but that's about it.
 
Thanks for replying though!
 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust       8/13/2008 7:22:26 AM
my daughter was part of a shipboard security detail for one of the worlds largest cruise liner companies. (she did it for 2 years, was weapons qual'd, LRAD qual'd and did base level VBSS for certification within the security company contracted to the cruise company)
 
based on my knowledge of attacks that she has been subjected to whilst in transit through a number of green water locations, and based on my own experience at one stage in providing personnel for a maritime security agency - I'd have to say that the use of a large sea basing asset for persistent locale ops is overkill.
 
unfort the detail that appears in the public press is often unmitigated  rubbish that has been overhyped to get paper sales - these vessels regularly deal with threats (and hers has had an RPG go through 2 staterooms but fail to explode)  and they often successfully manage to deal with the threat (they do have their own solutions which for obvious reasons (including insurance caveats) don't get air play.
 
the few times where they have needed naval assistance have resulted in a rapid response from frigate/destroyer sized assets that have organic air.
 
military skimmers  have a combination of speed, weapons flexibility and supernumerary assets that are far more useful in those rapidly evolving environments where corridor transit speeds are critical - and where "racetracking" by protective overwatch vessels is more readily deliverable by smaller skimmers than by what are essentially sea basing assets. (eg LH/LP mini carriers etc...)
 
they do this for a job, and they certainly don't see any benefit in committing carrier sized assets to an overwatch role.
 
a frigate or destroyer with a rotor asset is more than sufficient - and more than able to deal with swarming attacks (as is the norm in that particular region).  rotories have crews trained to engage high speed targets. 
 
I'd regard the committment of using a small carrier or LHA asset as useful if there was a need to engage in persistent ops against pirate bases - but the pirates are flexible and don't have fixed bases anyway. 
 
in addition, using a seabase asset to hot pursuit into their base of ops would need international sanction - and none of the existing overwatch "terriers" currently in these hot spots have their governments permission to hot pursuit into the territorial limit (and that includes the USN)
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

sjdoc    gf0012-aust - Point taken   8/13/2008 10:39:04 AM
military skimmers  have a combination of speed, weapons flexibility and supernumerary assets that are far more useful in those rapidly evolving environments where corridor transit speeds are critical - and where "racetracking" by protective overwatch vessels is more readily deliverable by smaller skimmers than by what are essentially sea basing assets. (eg LH/LP mini carriers etc...) 

they do this for a job, and they certainly don't see any benefit in committing carrier sized assets to an overwatch role. 

a frigate or destroyer with a rotor asset is more than sufficient - and more than able to deal with swarming attacks (as is the norm in that particular region).  rotories have crews trained to engage high speed targets. 
I'd regard the committment of using a small carrier or LHA asset as useful if there was a need to engage in persistent ops against pirate bases - but the pirates are flexible and don't have fixed bases anyway. 

 in addition, using a seabase asset to hot pursuit into their base of ops would need international sanction - and none of the existing overwatch "terriers" currently in these hot spots have their governments permission to hot pursuit into the territorial limit (and that includes the USN)

Despite being very much inclined to a "stack up the chips" approach (raising the stakes to the point at which the opposing players simply throw in their cards and get up from the table), I'm obliged to concede to experience.  The argument for the use of sea control ships is less for the purpose of "hot pursuit" to the attack of pirates' bases than for the ability of such vessels to "cover" a wider area than any one or two (or a small flotilla of) frigate-class units - with their limited rotary-wing assets - can manage, and to sustain such operations and escalate those operations in volume and lethality more flexibly and credibly than even a squadron of small boys can manage.
If by "frigates" we're speaking of combatants designed, configured, and manned chiefly as ASW convoy escorts (and I presume we are), the thought is that the "small boy" approach could eventually go even smaller, as anti-piracy patrol work hardly requires the material and human resources tasked for submarine-hunting.
 
Say, down to the 1100-ton displacement of the FSF-1 design, supported by land-based long-range patrol aircraft (including land-based URAV/UCAV elements). Even though the Sea Fighter was designed to operate up to two H-60 helicopters and/or a rotary-wing UAV like Fire Scout, who says that the aircraft involved in this work necessarily have to operate from any flight deck in the immediate sea area?
 
 
--
 
Note: As had been expected, the "X Craft" response to the Joint High Speed Vessel (JHSV) program requirements is proving inexpensive to build but costly in fuel consumption when operated at high speeds.  You don't get something for nothing.  This notwithstanding, efforts to overcome National Socialist and Oil Patch domestic political resistance to the full exploitation of synthetic fuels resources (oil shale extraction, thermal depolymerization, F-T coal processing, etc.) will eventually result in abatement of such limitations.  There is nothing technologically or economically significant in the way of resolving problems limiting access to these assets; it is merely a matter of scattering the blood and offal of various sacred cows - one Nancy Pelosi comes instantly to mind - over the pavement.
 
But that's the subject of another discussion.
 
Quote    Reply

Ispose    Another Option   9/23/2008 12:54:28 PM
How about a converted Tanker / Ore carrier etc to be used as a PT Boat Tender?..Sustainability, Big Deck to operate say 2 Gunships, 2 Troop helos, UAV's. Big Hold for supplies, maybe a Company of marines - 2 Plts troops, rest Flight crew.
Maybe 8 or so PT boats for patrolling...40mm Dual Gun mounts, Mk 19 AGL's, Dual .50's, maybe an 81 mm mortar for stationary targets.
Maybe this could be a joint US / UK / French venture?
Patrol for the pirates, blow them out of the water, and have a reaction team available if your need to do either a high seas or ground rescue
 
Quote    Reply





New Strategy - Wargames at Discount Prices
1.Modern Air Power: War Over the Middle East
2.Commander: Napoleon at War
3.Close Combat: Watch am Rhein
4.Gallic Wars
5.Fast Action Battle: The Bulge

100+ Computer and Board games all with free shipping.
 
 
 

StrategyWorld.com© 1998 - 2009StrategyWorld.com. All rights Reserved. StrategyWorld.com, StrategyPage.com, FYEO, For Your Eyes Only and Al Nofi's CIC are all trademarks of StrategyWorld.com Privacy Policy