Somali Pirate Solution.........

[ABikerSailor]

Yesterday, I was talking to my room mate about the situation in Somalia with the pirates, and we came up with a really simple solution.........

Water cannons.

And, I'm talking water cannons like what they use on the fire fighting tugboats. What would be the ideal solution is to place them fore and aft, with others lining the side if necessary, and slave them all into the bridge via remote control. That way, when the pirates attacked, there would be no exposed crew members taking fire.

This would also solve quite a few problems associated with taking armed ships into foreign ports, as most ports have quite a few restrictions on that, as well as would take care of the problem of having your weapons used against you.

A water cannon is capable of firing water 100-150 ft, at a very high pressure, and, given the stability of the RHIB boats that the pirates use, they would be capsized fairly easy. If nothing else, it would give the crew time to escape from a swamped boat.

What do you guys think?

Safety & Criticism

Early (1960's) water cannons (usually adapted fire trucks) would knock protesters down and on occasion, tear their clothes.

Anecdotal reports indicate that people can walk away from an encounter with a water cannon with serious internal injuries such as a ruptured spleen. If true and if such injuries are ignored, death could occur later. The high pressure that a modern water cannon can achieve (up to 30 bar) can break bones. There have been reports of cobblestone streets being torn open by the jet of water.[citation needed]

A report issued in the United Kingdom said that use of plastic bullets over water cannon was justified because "Water cannons are inflexible and indiscriminate", although several people had been very seriously injured by plastic bullets.

[edit] Media effect

The presence of the media at riots has had a significant impact on water cannon use. There is much pressure on police departments to avoid bad publicity, and water cannons often play badly in the press. It is considered that this is a likely reason that they are not used more often in countries with a free press.[citation needed]

Pictures of riots being dispersed by water cannons remind some of the American Civil Rights Movement when they were used by authorities to disperse crowds of protesting African Americans; this reminder is one reason why the water cannon has fallen out of favor in the USA.[5]

[edit] Alternative payload

[edit] Dye

In 1997, pink dye was reportedly added to the water used by Indonesian police to disperse a riot.[6] The implication is that they might use this mark to make it easier to arrest rioters later. The United Kingdom, who sold the water cannons to Indonesia, condemned this practice, (although the Royal Ulster Constabulary had used a water cannon with purple dye during The Troubles in Northern Ireland) but later approved the sale of more water cannons to them. Most modern water cannons are also capable of adding tear gas to the stream.

[edit] Electricity

One manufacturer is experimenting with additives (salt and additives to reduce the breakup of the stream into droplets) that would allow electricity to be conducted through water. They have demonstrated delivery from a distance of up to twenty feet (6 m), but have not yet tested the device on people.

Although referred to as an electrified water cannon, this experiment involved a water jet much less powerful than a water cannon.

[edit] Other types of Water Cannons

Water cannons differ from other similar devices in the volume of water delivered in a given time, the nozzle speed, the pressure that it is delivered at, and to a lesser extent the total volume that can be delivered. They are also generally portable. The method of employment is also important in labelling a device a water cannon. Nevertheless, the distinction between a water cannon and other similar devices is fuzzy. For example:-

* Pressure washers generally produce an extremely high pressure stream where the power of the stream drops off significantly over a very short distance.
* Water pistols and other toys deliver much less water at a much lower pressure with a much lower volume of water.
* Ultra high pressure water jet cutters are used to cut a wide variety of materials including granite, concrete (see hydrodemolition),ceramics, fabric and even Kevlar.[7] One such cutter delivers 55,000 psi (380 MPa) through a nozzle 0.003 inch (8 micrometres) in diameter at 1 kilometre per second. This can cut a person in half at close range. There are reports of accidental deaths involving the industrial use of high-pressure water.[8]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_cannon

 

[sealybobo]

Did you see that Italian cruise ship had Israeli commando's on board and they were able to thwart the pirate attack?

 

[ABikerSailor]

Yeah......but the thing is, if you slave water cannons into the ships firefighting system, as well as make them remotely operated, you have a ONE TIME EXPENSE of installation, and from there on, it's only maintenance that you have to worry about.

Much cheaper than hiring a militia to ride your vessel.

I wrote this idea to Maersk this morning.

 

[DiamondDave]

 

[ABikerSailor]

No Dave, that's for the pirate BASES, not the ships.

Kinda like going after a fly with a shotgun........

BTW.......ever see one of those ships fire? IMPRESSIVE!!!!!!! Saw it while I was over in Beruit in 83-85.

 

[DiamondDave]

This better

 

[ABikerSailor]

You know what would work even better? A Marine landing craft outfitted with a Bushmaster. You know....the one with the magnetic ammo that will explode where you tell it to mid-air?

Saw it fired on a boat on FutureWeapons once. Swiss cheesed everything above the waterline and totally destroyed the mannequins.

 

[p kirkes]

ABIKERSAILOR;

If I understand the situation, weapons employed by the ships/crew are undesirable.
Your water cannon idea sounds plausible but would it still be considered a weapon?

Consider who is manning these ships, not trained military, but little Philippines, Arabs, Malaysians, Vietnamese, Indians, etc, etc. They have a hard time just talking to one another in routine matters and they didn't sign up to soldier. First sign of trouble and they are under cover.

Somehow, IMO, a protection scheme that doesn't involve the civilian crew and their ships must be fashioned.

In another thread on this subject, I posted that small, armed boats, like those used in the river navy in Vietnam, manned by trained warrior mercenaries, escort ships through this dangerous area. The armed boats would be tended by a mother ship. The operation is funded on a fee for service basis and voluntary.

Sounds like something out of an Al Capone movie. A protection racket, pay up or the pirates get you. Gad, the business implications are prolly short term and may not be worth the effort.

 

[ABikerSailor]

ABIKERSAILOR;

If I understand the situation, weapons employed by the ships/crew are undesirable.
Your water cannon idea sounds plausible but would it still be considered a weapon?

Consider who is manning these ships, not trained military, but little Philippines, Arabs, Malaysians, Vietnamese, Indians, etc, etc. They have a hard time just talking to one another in routine matters and they didn't sign up to soldier. First sign of trouble and they are under cover.

Somehow, IMO, a protection scheme that doesn't involve the civilian crew and their ships must be fashioned.

In another thread on this subject, I posted that small, armed boats, like those used in the river navy in Vietnam, manned by trained warrior mercenaries, escort ships through this dangerous area. The armed boats would be tended by a mother ship. The operation is funded on a fee for service basis and voluntary.

Sounds like something out of an Al Capone movie. A protection racket, pay up or the pirates get you. Gad, the business implications are prolly short term and may not be worth the effort.

Actually, when the call to repel boarders (i.e. people trying to stop the ship from performing it's mission.....) is sent over the 1MC (ship's speaker system), it isn't considered a weapon as much as a non-lethal deterrent.

Now.....you're right........the average deckhand isn't going to be willing to place themselves in the line of fire, and generally, a deckhand (general Seaman), isn't going to have the training required to operate it (generally).

But........the officers will. And generally, those are the people that are plotting the course of the ship, as well as making operational decisions concerning the ship and crew. Now, if you make them remotely operated from the bridge (as most firefighting equipment that is automated is), and you have officers trained to sight them in and fire them remotely, it would solve a lot of problems.

Never mind that the water cannons are a non-lethal option, and cannot be used against the crew, but, this particular little solution will keep them legal in international ports, as fire fighting equipment is not considered a weapon.

Personally? I think it would be a lot cheaper to install and use than having armed militia riding alongside or on the boat.

You do realize that it doesn't take much to capsize a RHIB boat right?

Learned most of this stuff by the way when I did a 2 year tour with Military Sealift Command while in the Navy.

 

[Harry Dresden]

hey Cartman and Butters got a few of their friends together and unwittingly ended the problem....so its over.....lol

 

[ABikerSailor]

Only because the French were pussies.