Piracy and Other Threat Protection

[Solent Richard]

No doubt many members have been following @Roscoe 's blog....

 

http://exitviathegiftshop.blogspot.com/?view=magazine

 

...and will have spotted his take on Queen Victoria's anti-pirate measures while sailing in Asian waters...

 

 

*****

 

He does also mention additional measures but the stern promenade deck where they were positioned was 'out of bounds'.

 

So I thought it maybe of interest to show what I captured on my trusty Nikon while preparing to sail Trans Atlantic on Queen Mary 2 some years ago.

 

The LRAD (Long Range Acoustic Device) ....

 

 

******

 

 

 

[*Miss G*]

Any idea why there would have been an LRAD on a TransAtlantic?

[Solent Richard]

3 hours ago, *Miss G* said:

Any idea why there would have been an LRAD on a TransAtlantic?

Terrorist precautions?

 

I make a habit of noting what's on offer in the security stakes. It always draws my attention, particularly sailing out of New York onboard Queen Mary 2 with both the NYPD...

 

 

*****

 

...and the US Coast Guard....

 

 

...in armed attendance....

 

[*Miss G*]

32 minutes ago, Solent Richard said:

Terrorist precautions?

 

Hmm.  Possibly a result of 9/11 if, as you say, you sailed from there years ago.  I don’t recall seeing any on my sailings but I will pay attention next trip.

[ChrisMV]

This was from my world cruise on QM2 when we left the UAE heading to India years back.

[ChrisMV]

Just now, ChrisMV said:

This was from my world cruise on QM2 when we left the UAE heading to India years back.

world “voyage” . . . it’s not a cruise

[ChrisMV]

[Victoria2]

Our pirate drill was a good opportunity to meet our neighbours and have a pre, pre-luncheon G&T to help the drill get underway.

 

Most congenial, except I have an inkling that wasn't the point of the pirate drill!🙂

[BklynBoy8]

23 minutes ago, ChrisMV said:

This was from my world cruise on QM2 when we left the UAE heading to India years back.

 

Remember Well During Those Times...on the QM2.....

[NE John]

4 hours ago, Solent Richard said:

Terrorist precautions?

 

I make a habit of noting what's on offer in the security stakes. It always draws my attention, particularly sailing out of New York onboard Queen Mary 2 with both the NYPD...

 

 

*****

 

...and the US Coast Guard....

 

 

...in armed attendance....

 

In addition to the above sea and air fanfare, we were lucky enough to sail out of N.Y. Harbor on the bridge of QM2 with heavily armed members of the NYC Hercules anti-terrorist force manning the bridge. Those dudes were not into chit-chatting…

[Victoria2]

I forget which year it was but in the US ports where we docked, at all times there were armed what I presume were coastguard, little boats buzzing around us until we departed.

Colombo was pretty hot [oops, sorry] on obvious armed security in port too although we didn't go the Fred approach of razor wire as a deck accessory.

 

We have been buzzed by navel aircraft in all the best places, eg the US and the Indian Ocean. 🙂

Security is paramount and no one wants a stricken cruise ship on their watch.

[ace2542]

They can deploy water cannon and sonic defences and yet they stop to recsue ships in the middle of the ocean and it could be anyone including a bunch of terrorists in a fire ship with a load of explosives who then proceed to ramp the ship once it stops. A fancyful scenario perhaps but then so was 9/11.

 

A fire ship is what was used in war when ships where made of wood back in the days of francis drake they would fill one with gunpower and send it into the enemy fleet in port if they could catch them there.

Edited March 19 by ace2542

[ace2542]

56 minutes ago, Victoria2 said:

Security is paramount and no one wants a stricken cruise ship on their watch

So why stop to rescue ships in the middle of the ocean? Doesn't that rescue put everyone at risk. It could be anyone on that ship

[Solent Richard]

9 hours ago, NE John said:

In addition to the above sea and air fanfare, we were lucky enough to sail out of N.Y. Harbor on the bridge of QM2 with heavily armed members of the NYC Hercules anti-terrorist force manning the bridge. Those dudes were not into chit-chatting…

 

These Guys?.....

 

 

They were pretty tooled up .

[Solent Richard]

11 hours ago, ChrisMV said:

This was from my world cruise on QM2 when we left the UAE heading to India years back.

 

Nice one @ChrisMV 

 

Always good to see someone else's photographs.  😉😉

[Victoria2]

32 minutes ago, ace2542 said:

So why stop to rescue ships in the middle of the ocean? Doesn't that rescue put everyone at risk. It could be anyone on that ship

If you mean ships and private yachts etc as opposed to potential pirate conveyances, correct me if I'm wrong, but I think it's a legal requirement to help fellow 'mariners' in distress at sea so take that up with whichever organisation makes the rules.

 

Of course one can always get the Captain to lean over the side and say, 'excuse me chaps, are you in distress or are you pirates in disguise ready to do a Captain Phillips number'! 😕

 

Edit

I would like to think the Master of any ship replying to a distress call will have a modicum of common sense and have sufficient information in these matters and will not have to rely on asking if they're potential pirates!

 

Edited March 19 by Victoria2

[chengkp75]

USCG has armed "Sea Marshals" that randomly board ships inbound and outbound from US ports, the cruise ships getting more attention than others.  This has been going on since 9/11, but is still in practice.  The response may be armed RHIB boats as shown in photos above, or it may be armed service members onboard the ship.  Typically, they will have a couple of personnel on the bridge, a couple in the steering gear room (or azipod space (not in the pod)), and a couple in the Engine Control Room.  Sometimes armed with just sidearms, sometimes with long guns.

 

Interesting anecdote, when in Hawaii, our Security Officer turned away an armed (long gun), in uniform, USCG seaman from boarding the Pride of Aloha because he had left his ID back at base.  He argued about it, but his superior agreed with Security and sent the man back down into the boat.  He mentioned to Security that it wasn't planned that way, but if Security had let the man onboard, he would have cited the ship for an ISPS (International Ship and Port Security) Code violation.

[chengkp75]

And ace, shaking my head that you've resurrected this fear of using rescue as a terrorist tactic.  In case you haven't noticed, ships have evolved quite a bit since the heyday of fire ships.  And, before you bring up possible explosives, remember the USS Cole, which was damaged similarly as you think, and which had a huge hole blown in the side, but guess what, it never sank.

 

Besides, the ship never lets the refugee boat or liferaft, or whatever, alongside the ship.  The ship sends the rescue boat, or a lifeboat, to the persons needing assistance, and then transfer them from their craft to the rescue/lifeboat one at a time, not allowing anything to be carried over.

[ace2542]

7 minutes ago, chengkp75 said:

And ace, shaking my head that you've resurrected this fear of using rescue as a terrorist tactic.  In case you haven't noticed, ships have evolved quite a bit since the heyday of fire ships.  And, before you bring up possible explosives, remember the USS Cole, which was damaged similarly as you think, and which had a huge hole blown in the side, but guess what, it never sank.

 

Besides, the ship never lets the refugee boat or liferaft, or whatever, alongside the ship.  The ship sends the rescue boat, or a lifeboat, to the persons needing assistance, and then transfer them from their craft to the rescue/lifeboat one at a time, not allowing anything to be carried over.

Cruise ship don't have the armour the U.S.S Cole had do they?.  Many people woul die in a copycat attack? Pray they never try it. With the cruise ship at a full stop they would be able to strike if they suddenly came at the ship the captain would have no chance to evade would he?

 

Such an attack would really change the industry just like 9/11 did for flying.

[exlondoner]

17 minutes ago, chengkp75 said:

And ace, shaking my head that you've resurrected this fear of using rescue as a terrorist tactic.  In case you haven't noticed, ships have evolved quite a bit since the heyday of fire ships.  And, before you bring up possible explosives, remember the USS Cole, which was damaged similarly as you think, and which had a huge hole blown in the side, but guess what, it never sank.

 

Besides, the ship never lets the refugee boat or liferaft, or whatever, alongside the ship.  The ship sends the rescue boat, or a lifeboat, to the persons needing assistance, and then transfer them from their craft to the rescue/lifeboat one at a time, not allowing anything to be carried over.

And I believe the duty to rescue is an absolute duty to rescue and would in fact extend to a shipwrecked pirate, unpopular as this might be.

[ace2542]

7 minutes ago, exlondoner said:

And I believe the duty to rescue is an absolute duty to rescue and would in fact extend to a shipwrecked pirate, unpopular as this might be.

And that duty trumps safety of the passenger and crew? Bear in mind it was far different world when that duty was inacted than it is today sadly.

[Victoria2]

Just now, ace2542 said:

And that duty trumps safety of the passenger and crew? Bear in mind it was far different world when that duty was inacted than it is today sadly.

Ace

 

Chill. We could offer any sinister individuals some Pol Aker as gesture of good faith. That should keep 'em at bay!

[chengkp75]

7 minutes ago, exlondoner said:

And I believe the duty to rescue is an absolute duty to rescue and would in fact extend to a shipwrecked pirate, unpopular as this might be.

Actually, it is not.  The requirement is for all ships to provide aid to persons in distress, provided the Captain does not place his ship, crew, passengers, cargo, or the environment in undue danger.  This is why typically, the USCG will, when a ship reports a floating wreck with a bunch of Cuban refugees onboard, if the craft is in no danger of sinking, the USCG will instruct the vessel to merely stay on location with the "boat" until a cutter can arrive.  It is the ship's Captain's decision whether to take the people onboard his ship or not.

[chengkp75]

17 minutes ago, ace2542 said:

Cruise ship don't have the armour the U.S.S Cole had do they?.

Which just goes to show how uninformed about maritime issues you are.  Naval vessels today do not have armor plated hulls.  They are mild steel hulls, just like cruise ships and other merchant ships.

 

20 minutes ago, ace2542 said:

With the cruise ship at a full stop they would be able to strike if they suddenly came at the ship the captain would have no chance to evade would he?

Oh, you mean the boat that looks damaged or sinking that can suddenly accelerate to 60 miles per hour and strike the ship?  How do you disguise a cigarette racing boat as a sinking wreck?  Do you know how bow thrusters work?  They push enough water away from the ship to move the thousands of tons of ship away from a dock.  If directed at a small boat, it typically will swamp or sink that boat.  And, besides, just exploding something alongside a ship does not guarantee that you would seriously damage the ship, let alone blow a hole in her.  That requires either a vast amount of explosive, or a shaped charge pressed against the hull, or some form of damping to direct the explosive force towards the ship, and not in all directions.

 

And, even if the ship is stopped, the Captain will have the ability to steer and use thrusters, to keep the damaged boat away from his ship.  Or do you think the Captain is so incompetent or uncaring that he would just let the boat drift closer and closer, without taking the basic precautions that sent the rescue boat out to the refugees in the first place?

 

Always amusing, and always uninformed, as usual, ace.

[exlondoner]

27 minutes ago, chengkp75 said:

Actually, it is not.  The requirement is for all ships to provide aid to persons in distress, provided the Captain does not place his ship, crew, passengers, cargo, or the environment in undue danger.  This is why typically, the USCG will, when a ship reports a floating wreck with a bunch of Cuban refugees onboard, if the craft is in no danger of sinking, the USCG will instruct the vessel to merely stay on location with the "boat" until a cutter can arrive.  It is the ship's Captain's decision whether to take the people onboard his ship or not.

Yes, obviously a judgement must be made, so a lone person, possibly a pirate, (who I believe aren’t much interested in cruise ships, anyway) is clearly not a threat in the way a boat load might be. But the judgement is not always easy. I have read of RN sailors scarred for life by the fact their ships, for the good but mistaken reason they thought enemy ships were approaching, left many sailors to drown after the Bismarck had been sunk.

Edited March 19 by exlondoner