Piracy In The High Seas

[chengkp75]

Good answer as usual!

 

Do cruise ships have a master at arms? Or is that more like head of security?

 

That would be The Security Officer, as opposed to a Security officer. :D

[LHT28]

http://maggiesfarm.anotherdotcom.com/archives/11581-Luxury-Pirate-Hunting-Cruise.html

Funny spoof on the pirates

 

 

truth is the Nautica did evade Pirates a few years ago

[Hlitner]

Cruise ships do guard most of their security plans, out of necessity. But a friend, who used to be the Security Officer on a HAL ship did tell us a few things. Cruise ships are big and relatively fast. So in a bad situation they will go to top speed (over 20 knots) which makes it just about impossible for anyone to board the ship. That alone, will protect most cruise ships from typical pirates. While they may have weapons it is usually limited to small arms and RPGs which are certainly big trouble, but cannot stop a cruise ship.

 

The biggest problem for cruise line security is when they are if foreign ports, which often do little to protect the ships. And that is what keeps the ship's Security Officers awake at night. Our friend used to usually have his wife aboard, but she told us it was rare when she would get to go ashore with her husband...who seldom left his ship when in ports.

 

Hank

[Extra Kim]

Here's some info about an old attack.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Breeze

[loubetti]

I would be far, far more worried about terrorism on the seas than pirates, especially these days. It's only a matter of time before this hits and not just in the Med either. Cruise ships are soft, sitting duck targets.

[bruadhin]

Cruise ships do guard most of their security plans, out of necessity. But a friend, who used to be the Security Officer on a HAL ship did tell us a few things. Cruise ships are big and relatively fast. So in a bad situation they will go to top speed (over 20 knots) which makes it just about impossible for anyone to board the ship. That alone, will protect most cruise ships from typical pirates. While they may have weapons it is usually limited to small arms and RPGs which are certainly big trouble, but cannot stop a cruise ship.

 

The biggest problem for cruise line security is when they are if foreign ports, which often do little to protect the ships. And that is what keeps the ship's Security Officers awake at night. Our friend used to usually have his wife aboard, but she told us it was rare when she would get to go ashore with her husband...who seldom left his ship when in ports.

 

Hank

 

That certainly sounds reasonable. If you could sink say the Oasis of the Seas, you managed to endanger thousands of Americans and their lackeys. Although, as a terrorist, I wouldn't try to sink a cruise ship. I would do something that was more of a threat to the passengers and crew without the need to gather enough explosives to sink her or subvert enough crew to have them scuttle her.

[loubetti]

The terrorists (think "ISIS") are not likely to be able to sink a cruise ship. Just kill some people and, remember, they WILL commit suicide to do this. They are not about money and hostages, just about killing others.

 

chengkp75: I am not about to say how they could accomplish this, even though they already know how. The real shock will come WHERE they do it, and how. This attack will not come from within (Achille Lauro), but from outside (USS Cole). Also, as to the latter, do not assume it will be a boat either.

 

The ship's "security plans" will be useless then. It will be over before they can react.

 

Am I worried, cancelling cruises or vacations? No. Also, I do not want to scare anyone, and everyone should go about their plans without fear.

 

Obviously though, this is of grave concern to me, because I do not know if there is a way to prevent it.

[AmazedByCruising]

The terrorists (think "ISIS") are not likely to be able to sink a cruise ship. Just kill some people and, remember, they WILL commit suicide to do this. They are not about money and hostages, just about killing others.

 

Till a few days ago I thought ships would be sitting ducks, too. But why would you try to attack a ship with security on board, some of which you probably don't know about, when the passengers walk of daily to visit a museum anyway? Like the attack in Tunisia: "low hanging fruit" and immediately linked to cruising in the press anyway. Not even a need to commit suicide, but if you really need to, the virgins are available across the street. A ship has scanners and security that will have a bit more interest in passengers called Mohammed with a long beard and a dress than bingo playing grandmas in a wheelchair from England. (And rightly so IMHO but I'm not TSI). Attacking the ship itself, with like 2000 passengers and 1000 crew of which at least a few will be saying Let's roll makes not much sense.

[chengkp75]

The terrorists (think "ISIS") are not likely to be able to sink a cruise ship. Just kill some people and, remember, they WILL commit suicide to do this. They are not about money and hostages, just about killing others.

 

chengkp75: I am not about to say how they could accomplish this, even though they already know how. The real shock will come WHERE they do it, and how. This attack will not come from within (Achille Lauro), but from outside (USS Cole). Also, as to the latter, do not assume it will be a boat either.

 

The ship's "security plans" will be useless then. It will be over before they can react.

 

Am I worried, cancelling cruises or vacations? No. Also, I do not want to scare anyone, and everyone should go about their plans without fear.

 

Obviously though, this is of grave concern to me, because I do not know if there is a way to prevent it.

 

Lou, I know where your thinking is taking you. Just like life, you can't plan for everything, and nothing is guaranteed. I will say that security protocols in many countries have increased in the past few years, and the once unthinkable is now a routinely plotted exercise.

[mr green]

How do cruise ships combat piracy in the high seas, in the middle of nowhere? I can just imagine water cannons appearing from the side of the ship pointing towards the pirates to prevent them from boarding the ship.

 

There should be no problem, as it is very difficult to for anyone to get past the ship's photographers.

 

john

[CruiserBruce]

The cruise ship can run at 20 kts for 2 to 4 weeks.

 

I don't think so...as cruise ships need to refuel every 12 or so days, after much slower cruises. I would be interested in what ship can go 20 knots for 4 weeks...And why they would need to...

[Clarea]

I don't think so...as cruise ships need to refuel every 12 or so days, after much slower cruises. I would be interested in what ship can go 20 knots for 4 weeks...And why they would need to...

I guess the Captain who told me that was incorrect, or just bragging.

Edited February 24, 2016 by clarea

[Flatbush Flyer]

Since the OP is interested in piracy, perhaps s/he would like to know more about the overall inner workings of the maritime industry:

The Outlaw Sea

by William Langewiesche

2004

[chengkp75]

I don't think so...as cruise ships need to refuel every 12 or so days, after much slower cruises. I would be interested in what ship can go 20 knots for 4 weeks...And why they would need to...

 

While the ships do take on fuel every 2 weeks or so, they are never even close to "empty" when they fuel. There are various reasons for this, like the possibility of fuel unavailability (it does happen) when required, so they need a cruise's worth of extra fuel, the industry best practices of not burning fuel until the chemical analysis comes back (2-4 days), and not mixing fuel from two different fuelings in the tanks. Even Oasis at full power on the propulsion, along with normal hotel load, burns about 17mt/hr or 408mt/day. Two weeks at this consumption is 5700mt, and I know that Oasis has more fuel tankage than that, since the much smaller Norwegian Sky carried 6000mt.

 

So, while 4 weeks would be stretching it, 2 weeks at full speed is entirely reasonable.

[CruiserBruce]

While the ships do take on fuel every 2 weeks or so, they are never even close to "empty" when they fuel. There are various reasons for this, like the possibility of fuel unavailability (it does happen) when required, so they need a cruise's worth of extra fuel, the industry best practices of not burning fuel until the chemical analysis comes back (2-4 days), and not mixing fuel from two different fuelings in the tanks. Even Oasis at full power on the propulsion, along with normal hotel load, burns about 17mt/hr or 408mt/day. Two weeks at this consumption is 5700mt, and I know that Oasis has more fuel tankage than that, since the much smaller Norwegian Sky carried 6000mt.

 

So, while 4 weeks would be stretching it, 2 weeks at full speed is entirely reasonable.

 

So full speed, 24 hours/day, for 14 days is reasonable? OK. I can't imagine a need for that, or even more than a couple of days to evade a threat. But 28 days seems crazy.

[Clarea]

So full speed, 24 hours/day, for 14 days is reasonable? OK. I can't imagine a need for that, or even more than a couple of days to evade a threat. But 28 days seems crazy.

Actually, not full speed for the ship in question, (Royal's Voyager class), top speed is around 23 kts. The Captain said that he could normally do 20 kts with 5 generators (one generator off).

[grand isle joe]

........but what happens if "grapes" are out of season?......do they use kumquats?

[chengkp75]

So full speed, 24 hours/day, for 14 days is reasonable? OK. I can't imagine a need for that, or even more than a couple of days to evade a threat. But 28 days seems crazy.

 

I'm saying it is reasonable to expect the ship to be able to do it, given the fuel capacity. I'm not saying doing it is reasonable. Even at today's depressed residual fuel prices, that's $55k/day, plus the hours on the engines (each engine is overhauled at 12k hours). Cruise ships are designed with a lot more fuel capacity than their typical cruise routes.

 

Look at the Trans Pac routes. There are few really viable fuel stops in mid Pacific, outside of Honolulu, where fuel is twice as expensive as the West Coast.

 

At a relatively leisurely 15 knots:

 

Anchorage to Osaka is 10 days

Honolulu to Sydney is 12 days

Seattle to Osaka is 12 days

 

Industry best practice is to not leave port without not only enough fuel to get to your destination, but with a reserve of 50% of your longest sea passage in case of diversion, weather, etc. And that is the longest sea passage between ports where fuel is available. So, Honolulu to Sydney, you would need 18 days steaming worth of fuel.

[NurseDave]

 

Industry best practice is to not leave port without not only enough fuel to get to your destination, but with a reserve of 50% of your longest sea passage in case of diversion, weather, etc. And that is the longest sea passage between ports where fuel is available. So, Honolulu to Sydney, you would need 18 days steaming worth of fuel.

 

I have that same rule, except with Oreos

[TC1957]

So full speed, 24 hours/day, for 14 days is reasonable? OK. I can't imagine a need for that, or even more than a couple of days to evade a threat. But 28 days seems crazy.

 

What's the saying...Better to have it and not need it than need it and not have it.

 

:D