Vessel protection detachments

Vessel protection detachments
The new standard in anti-piracy protocols or a one-off practice?

The last few months have seen some vessels operating in high-risk waters of the Gulf of Aden and the Somali Basin employing vessel protection detachments to fend off piratical attacks. The detachments consist of a small number of armed military or civilian security guards. Their purpose is to deter pirates from attacking the vessel and, if that fails, to defend the vessel from an actual piratical attack. There has been no announcement as to which ships carry vessel protection detachments, although it appears that most, if not all, US-flag commercial vessels operating in these waters have contract security guards on board. Some French and Spanish fishing vessels have commenced carrying vessel protection detachments. At least one cruise ship utilized a vessel protection detachment. The Belgian Government will make its military personnel available for such use on Belgian-flag vessels upon request and payment of costs. The rules of engagement utilized by these detachments have not been made public. It is also unclear how the potential liability for actions of these security guards has been allocated between the governments, the commercial security companies, and the ship owners/operators, or what impact these arrangements have on insurance coverage. To date, there have been only a few reported engagements between suspected pirates and embarked vessel security detachments. All have ended with the pirates breaking off the attacks. There have been no reported casualties or damage on board the embarked vessels. It is unknown whether the suspected pirates incurred any injuries or damage. Because the deployed naval units are unable to protect every legitimate vessel operating in the one million square mile high-risk waters off Somalia, we should expect to see increasing use of vessel protection detachments (either military or civilian), at least until something untoward happens. Ship owners and operators considering deployment of such detachments should opt for military personnel if available. If civilian contract security guards are to be used, the experience and training of the personnel, as well as the rules of engagement and contractual arrangements must be carefully considered. To date, there is no indication that use of vessel protection detachments has expanded to other waters, such as off West Africa or in waters near the Strait of Malacca. Only time will tell whether the benefits justify the high costs.
 
Posted by Dennis Bryant on 12/1/2009 7:00:00 AM
Report abuse



Bookmark this page to:Add to Faves Add to MyAOL Add to Simpy Add to Delicious Add to Live Add to Digg Add to Newsvine Add to Reddit Add to Multiply Add to Blogmarks Add to Yahoo MyWeb Add to Slashdot Add to Mister Wong Add to Spurl Add to Furl Add to Link-a-Gogo Add to Yahoo Bookmarks Add to Twitter Add to Facebook Add to Diigo Add to Mixx Add to Segnalo Add to StumbleUpon Add to Magnolia Add to Ask Add to Backflip Add to Terchnorati Add to Google Bookmarks Add to MySpace

Comments
Steve Toby
This is indeed an interesting development. In principle, even a single security guard -- Armed Forces or civilian -- with a rifle should, by virtue of a higer and much more stable platform, be able to make the typical Somali pirate attack very costly, if not impossible, for the other side. Of course this depends on when he's allowed to open fire, which will in turn influence the pirates' tactics.

In World War II, merchant ships in convoys routinely carried "Armed Guard" detachments equipped with substantial, but obsolescent deck guns. To what extent this really helped them in the Battle of the Atlantic could be debated, but certainly it forced U-boats to submerge, reducing their mobility.

Bringing armed guards onto today's merchant ship creates its own problems. Will the crew speak the same language as the guards? Many flag states' merchant ships are not crewed by citizens of that state. Will there be sufficient accommodations? Will the guards have to bring their own food? Can they be delivered by helicopter and then removed as the ship emerges from the danger area? If they have to ride the ship the whole voyage when she's in pirate-infested waters only 10% of the time, it's an expensive waste of resources, yet providing helo "dinghy service" won't be cheap either -- it means a warship must be stationed at the right place on both sides of the danger zone. Being an armed guard on a merchant ship, even in the danger zone, will for almost all of the time be terribly boring. It's not certain that a sufficiently good watch could be kept even using a 3-watch system, so I see the security detachment being of substantial size.

While this is certainly is an interesting development, on the other hand I can also see complication and expense for ship owners and operators. Let's see how it shakes out.
12/1/2009 2:25:19 PM
 

Sign in

Latest blog comments

9/6/2010

Calin Antonescu
I have to disagree regarding some points: 1. The number of...

9/4/2010

Calin Antonescu
While I understand the desire to have clean waters (all ove...

9/4/2010

Calin Antonescu
This is another way of making money out of dry stone. For p...

9/3/2010

Ron Oyer
Good points Mark. It would be nice to see the state schools...

9/3/2010

Mark Sales
First comment, (sour grapes) - this is what comes of the in...

9/1/2010

Ron Oyer
It is only right that US cadets meet the same standards as ...

8/31/2010

Raina Clark
I like you style Joe! I really enjoyed this article.

8/29/2010

Steve Toby
Great post, Mr. Keefe -- brought back lots of memories. I ...

8/26/2010

Ron Oyer
RCCL has always been a bit ahead of the curve through in ho...

8/19/2010

Gary Ferrulli
Depends on your perspecitve for one thing and then how will...
 
© 2009 New Wave Media     Terms
Any Questions: support@maritimeprofessional.com