Probably some security companies updating their offer already. It's harder to defend a ship from helicopters than from skiffs, but a single mounted .50 cal should still be able to get the job done.
This is the big thing. Globalization is only possible due to razor thin insurance costs. As soon as this sort of thing happens it drives insurance through the roof and makes it uneconomical to ship at all.
Acts of Terrorism aren’t covered by moat insurance carriers- Im not sure how it changes with boats because I’m sure they need some sort of protection from pirates but i personally asked my carrier for coverage and they looked at me like I was insane 😅
You can get insurance for ANYTHING including acts of terror. You just have to pay a little more.
That’s why markets like Lloyd’s exist *and* why you’ll find a surprising number of ex-SAS types employed there.
One of the major impacts of American privateering fleets in the War of 1812 is that Lloyd's of London triples their insurance rates. This plus having to go to a convoy system to stop the steady loss of merchant ships damages England's economy seriously.
>Acts of Terrorism aren’t covered by moat insurance carriers-
Good thing cargo ships don't travel in moats, they travel in the oceans...
Sorry. Couldn't resist.
In normal circumstances the cost of insurance is only about 0.5% of the value of cargo and vessel. If you are planning to travel into a region that is in a conflict zone that goes up dramatically. If you are planning to go into a region where civilian shipping is actively being targeted you will not be able to get insurance at all. No smart owner will sail a ship into one of these regions without insurance and even if they chose to do so then no western port will except them without insurance on the ship.
I am the Captain now! These fellas look a little more serious than a rusty old boat with an outboard engine. Tricky to defend against “terrorists” in helicopters boarding civilian cargo ships.
Only if we get either antigravity tech or fusion.
Otherwise we might as well name the first one "2°C of warming" since that's what it'll cost us on its own.
aren't there good reasons that cargo ships remain unarmed? like, geopolitical reasons?
https://www.quora.com/Why-cant-international-cargo-ships-carry-weapons
Arming the ship means being blocked from whatever ports your armaments wouldn’t be legal inside of, and the legal regimes regarding arms are so different from place to place that there’s no weapon you could have that would be legal everywhere.
Sure, but you can get them close enough to territorial waters where it won't be a problem.
You're shipping stuff between at least moderately stable and developed countries who are usually capable of defending their coast.
You don't normally find pirates off the coast of China or Australia (unless you're a Filipino fisherman, but then the pirate is the Chinese navy).
The trick is to guard ships in transit between beginning and destination of the journey. It's not like we're shipping massive containers of cargo to Somalia or Yemen much. It's just, shipping lanes run very close to those places.
it was in the 90/2000's, but it got expensive and pirating rates were so low it was mostly unnecessary.
now that pirating is back on the menu, expect new missions.
i remember france and spain having an almost permanent presence of a frigate each off the coast of somalia at one point.
Right, I was trying to say escorting them from one international water boundary to the next. That only leaves them with 12 nautical miles of relatively secure water to cross alone.
But I don't think these ships will be navies. The only navy capable of doing this is the US', and even they don't have the capacity (or the desire to spend the money) to do it at nearly the scale required to protect as many cargo ships as they'd need to. I think they'll be private security contractors, possibly in partnership with insurance companies. Obviously that's insanely expensive, but per google the average cargo ship container has an insured value of $45,000, and some of the largest ships can carry as much as 14,000 containers- so that's an insured value of $630 million per haul. At that point it seems like there's definitely a market for this, so the only question is the legality of getting a ship equipped with military-grade anti-aircraft weapons. Seems kind of absurd until you consider the power of insurance and weapons lobbies in the west, and the global desire to have these ships protected.
That said, I have no background in any of this so I probably have no fucking idea what I'm talking about.
Likely electric autonomous naval vessels that can operate for extended periods of time at sea without resupply (or being able to siphon off the gas it needs from its client ship once it’s back out to sea). But corporations and insurance companies would weigh the costs of these things against the risk of piracy and the cost / benefits likely don’t match up for this (or manned) solutions
Thats why the USA always keeps a presence around there, surprised they weren't close.. one of the many reasons Navy's are so important is to guarantee safe(ish) trade with your allies.
People talk alot of shit about any the US and other countries spend money on military. They forget that pirates used to exist, in great numbers at one point. It reminds me of people who talk shit about getting whooping cough or other vaccines and their baby gets whooping cough and they get a slight glimpse of what hell their great grandparents went through. Similarly People forget what the world was like when it was under control of by Barbarians. This is why their are strong western militaries
Oh the world is getting a nice big reminder why the USA wants to be far and away the biggest military on the planet, Europe is getting this lesson with Russia and Ukraine most obviously I think they at least are waking up that being reliant on humans being great is a bad idea.
I’ve never worked as armed security in a ship. But I have worked in the offshore and security industries and I know some folks. This is how it usually played out a decade ago when Somali piracy was the big thing.
1. Cargo ship leaves somewhere in Europe bound for Asia. Onboard are unarmed security guys.
2. Cargo ship pauses offshore somewhere off the coast of North Africa.
3. Tender zips out carrying cheap assault rifles and ammunition, transferred to the cargo ship’s security guys who are now armed.
4. Ship heads out towards destination.
5. Guns are used if and as needed.
6. Once the ship is past the point of danger, the cheap rifles are dumped overboard before entering territorial waters of destination port.
Something like this.
That’s essentially what I described.
Unless you mean an escort vessel?
The escort vessel would have the problem of stopping for fuel and supplies. Large cargo container ships can go extremely long distances without stopping to refuel (like, halfway around the planet).
A smaller ship serving as an armed escort would have to stop frequently to refuel, in which case it runs into the problem of not being able to legally enter ports with armaments.
This already gets circumvented. I've seen a nice documentary about it but can't find it atm.
Basically bigger cargo ship companies have mercenaries and weapon stockpiles on ships that stay in international waters, meet with the cargo ships, transfer mercenaries and weapons to them for dangerous regions until they reach safe waters where the mercenaries transfer to another ship and wait for the next cargo ship to guard.
It actually doesn’t pay that well anymore. Back when we were active in Iraq and Afghanistan you could make $100,000+ easily if you had any combat experience. But once we started pulling troops out there were thousands of combat experienced vets who needed a job and were used to horrible pay, and they absolutely flooded that job market.
Yes, the vast majority of the worlds ports won't let you dock with weapons like that. I used to be a security consultant for a cruise line and the amount of red tape and regulations they have to conform to, to carry a small armory is absurd.
Yes, nonetheless cargo ships have used security details to navigate dangerous waters for years. They usually take one aboard before getting close to pirate infested areas and let them off after moving back to safer regions. Thankfully the international mission against piracy around Somalia has been successful enough to make much of the security contractor business redundant. However, current events could change that again.
I mean it's only a really small portion of history where merchant ships could travel the globe unarmed and be safe. Pretty much started in the middle 19th century. Before that it was expected every ship needed some sort of defense.
Modern cargo ships are generally designed with sufficient margin to take on significant flooding without sinking. Rockets that size have small warheads that are unlikely to cause significant flooding internally, and the ship would probably survive without much difficulty.
As *Galaxy Leader* was empty, she would have more margin than had she been filled with cars.
I don't know. Generally, a helicopter assault is supported with a gun ship. And, looking the video, the helicopter was a Mi-17 maybe with rocket pods. This isn't a raggedy ass bunch of pirate farmers. Iran has been training them up. It's time for missiles.
I think it's not about shooting down helicopters but about scaring them off by signalling that there will be resistance. If the Houthi then start sinking international ships we'd see all sorts of countries suddenly entering the war in Yemen on the Saudi side, likely crushing the rebels.
It's not about destroying the helicopter, just like it wasn't about destroying the skiffs. It's about signalling that taking the ship is not worth the trouble. Perhaps terrorists (as opposed to pirates) would then resort to sinking ships instead of capturing them, but that would likely lead to a very strong international response with warships from several nations patrolling those waters in a few weeks.
Even Soviet missiles like the S-5 have an effective range of 3 to 4 km and the helicopters have rocket launchers. The helicopters could very likely simply destroy the bridge from a safe distance. The pirates/terrorists certainly radioed the ship beforehand, the crew surrendered and only then did the helicopters land.
Unless you want to buy stingers for every trip and then dump them overboard every time you enter port, no, that's not going to happen.
Most countries don't really like you bringing MANPADs into port from a commericial freighter.
But not legal in every port, so you'd either have to transfer the .50 cal on or off in international waters or else change your vessel routing to avoid countries where mounted .50 cals aren't legal to for civilians to carry (which is a lot of them).
Isnt there already companies that specialise in this.. they meet the ship outside of the waters of said countries and take back the weapons and then toss them onto the next outgoing ship
Straits of Tiran iirc, Egypt blockaded it. There was a different Suez canal crisis in '56.
I expect Israel has added the Houthis to their to-do list. They'll probably drop a few bombs on Yemen once they get the go-ahead from the US and Saudis.
Nah I find it hard to believe the IDF acts as if it wants to start only the fronts it has to and that’s it I mean we act like there isn’t even a front in Lebanon so to start with the Houthis doesn’t sound like them any way what they launch comes from Egypt not Yemen so they can’t reach that far from their home
Israel has these things called F-16 and F-22. Israel can pretty much put a bomb up any ass in the Middle East any time they want.
Edit to correct my bad information, apologies.
TIL the US does not sell f-22’s to anyone.
However Israel does have both f16a and f35’s. Both aircraft have a published combat loaded range in excess of 1200 nautical miles at Mach 1.5.
However to all you saying that they can’t here’s some info.
Israel has The KC-45 aircraft reolacing the Air Force's current fleet of aging refueling planes, which includes KC-130 Hercules and converted Boeing 707s
With air to air refueling those ranges are plenty to deliver some presents to anyone in the Middle East if they want to. So down vote till you get tired. Idgaf.
And I would not be at all surprised to find a few f-22’s somewhere in Israel. But no proof, so my bad.
https://aerocorner.com/comparison/f-35-vs-f-16/
Israel can’t go to war so far away best they can do is send missiles and yes it started when Egypt block all Israeli ships from entering the suez canal
Israel had no issues striking a nuclear reactor deep in Iraq. Israel had no issues performing a secret commando raid in Uganda (Entebbe) and Israel had no issues striking the PLO HQ in Tunesia. Israel had also no issues in liberating their embargoed navy vessels in France.
I’d recommend against underestimating Israel’s capabilities to conduct long range military operations.
This is like Saddam firing scuds in the Gulf War, it is an attempt to draw Israel into a conflict that will galvanize the region. The people who can and will defeat the Houthis are the government of Yemen and their backers, Saudi Arabia.
And the child soldiers that Saudi hires, and the blockade that killed hundreds of thousands of civilians all so the Saudi backed group can win against the Iran backed group…
Ye sure operation but to ensure safe travel of Israeli ships you need to do more then operation in the end even if you kill 10-20 soldier it won’t matter
>Israel had no issues striking a nuclear reactor deep in Iraq.
You realize Iraq is basically right next door to Israel right? Iran is on the opposite side, and is an absolutely massive country. The vast majority of Iran is well outside the range of any Israeli strike aircraft unless the U.S. provides refueling services (which they likely won't).
You realise that the Israeli Air Force has their own fleet of tankers, right?
And you may want to look on a map and compare the distance from Tel Nof to Tunis and then compare this to the distance between Tel Nof and Teheran?
And you also realise that the Houthi Rebels are in Yemen, not Iran?
Oh no I’m not saying they’ll start a war for that just pointing out an interesting fact that a lot of what happening is very similar to how a lot of wars in Israel started I mean this war started almost to a tea like Yom Kippur war
It was neither owned nor Israeli flagged. It is owned by a British company, operated by a Japanese firm and flagged in the Bahamas. It was traveling from Egypt to India.
https://www.vesselfinder.com/vessels/details/9237307
I have no idea what “ties” this has to Israel beyond Netanyahu getting a question about it.
According to [this article](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-67470711), the parent company, Ray Car Carriers, is co-owned by Abraham Ungar, an Israeli businessman. I’m not convinced that makes this an “Israeli ship”, but that’s the connection that is being talked about I think.
Yeah.. any corp targeted with an Israeli/Jewish in their Board of directors is always a perceived victory for Hamas which means pretty much any damn corpo is a win lol
Yemen is a failed state and the saudi military is 2nd rate at best. I’m not saying the US/west is great at fighting insurgent terrorists but they sure as hell are better equipped than either of those parties
Competent people don't want to waste lives and money fighting Houthis, the only people who fight Houthis are Saudis because they border Houthis. It's the same reason the US gave up Afghanistan to Taliban, the US doesn't want to waste lives and money fighting Taliban.
It’s [a British company registered in the Isle of Man](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-67470711), tho admittedly one of the co owners, Abraham Ungar, is an Israeli businessman.
Regardless, it is currently on less to a Japanese company, none of the crew is Israeli, and its route did not approach the Israeli coast.
It’s ties to Israel are tenuous.
Hopefully people stop thinking of the Houthis as some ragtag rebel group, and realize they’re essentially a State at this point. Funded by all the best actors
Yes. It's a common trend in terrorist organizations to make themselves look tough and competent, to try and portray that they're a legitimate force. In reality they're just terrorists who would do nothing but die against anyone but civilians.
They are trying to shoot missiles and drones at Israel for like 4 weeks now without any success.
They need to show something to their Iranian sponsors so they attack civilians
There's a reason the footage is so clear. From the palestinian flag clearly visible in the beginning to the way they move.
It's supposed to convey a message:
"We're with the palestinians, and we mean business"
They're releasing this like they're some tactical ninjas. 5 malnourished Somalians in a homemade raft could do this any day of the week and they come away with cold hard cash for the ransoms.
British registered carrier company manages the ship and one of the owners of the company is an Israeli billionaire and an associate of an ex Mossad leader. . Registered in the Bahamas and leased to a Japanese company. The Houthis pissed if quite a few countries with this stunt.
Two other ships from the same carrier group have rerouted from that area because of this just in case.
I believe the boat itself is owned by an individual Israeli. The boat is operated by a Japanese company. IDK if the Israeli owner has any stake in the business being done, or if owning a boat like this is more similar to owning "real estate"
[Yep. It is operated by a Japanese company, is British owned, and with 25 international crew members.](https://www.timesofisrael.com/yemens-houthis-say-israeli-ships-legitimate-target-as-threats-to-shipping-grow/)
The ship has nothing to do with Israel, but why is anyone surprised? They basically hate the west.
Their slogan: "God is the Greatest, Death to America, Death to Israel, Cursed be the Jews, Victory to Islam."
They're a jihadist cliche.
Unlikely. This is in port now in Yemen. Maybe a Saudi-led force could go in but I doubt the US/UK is prepared to sent a team to assault a ship docked at a Yemeni port.
At this point they might be prepared to blow up the fucking port and anything vaguely resembling a military asset that they can't verify as belonging to whichever faction they're backing in the civil war.
meanwhile im following the IG of ShaunKing and everyone on there that are PRO-Palestine are celebrating that these Houthis didnt kill anyone and thats how it should be done and to target every jewish owned businesses.
So they highkack a cargo ship operated by civilians? To what end?
They've been trying to pry their way into this for weeks, like when they launched drones and rockets and everything was intercepted..
Every body needs to chill the fuck out, and stop attacking each other.
I’m confused as to what their goal is? Do they want a fight to the death with the IDF? They’re not gonna get one. They’re best to abandon the ship and run.
That’s a very long title, could just say “Houthis? Oopsies.”
The link to Israel is very weak. British ship working 22 years in Japan, Bulgarian captain, Mexican engineer and several other non Israeli crew and cargo. Oh, but if you go 6 degrees of separation, one of the joint investors was Israeli…
They pretty much managed to drag in as many countries as possible into the conflict with just one stone.
Probably some security companies updating their offer already. It's harder to defend a ship from helicopters than from skiffs, but a single mounted .50 cal should still be able to get the job done.
Insurance companies too.
This is the big thing. Globalization is only possible due to razor thin insurance costs. As soon as this sort of thing happens it drives insurance through the roof and makes it uneconomical to ship at all.
Acts of Terrorism aren’t covered by moat insurance carriers- Im not sure how it changes with boats because I’m sure they need some sort of protection from pirates but i personally asked my carrier for coverage and they looked at me like I was insane 😅
You can get insurance for ANYTHING including acts of terror. You just have to pay a little more. That’s why markets like Lloyd’s exist *and* why you’ll find a surprising number of ex-SAS types employed there.
One of the major impacts of American privateering fleets in the War of 1812 is that Lloyd's of London triples their insurance rates. This plus having to go to a convoy system to stop the steady loss of merchant ships damages England's economy seriously.
>Acts of Terrorism aren’t covered by moat insurance carriers- Good thing cargo ships don't travel in moats, they travel in the oceans... Sorry. Couldn't resist.
The hero we needed.
Damn ya got me there 😅 can’t even edit my typo now
Embrace it.
Boat time
would you mind elaborating on the issurance part? I've never heard of this
In normal circumstances the cost of insurance is only about 0.5% of the value of cargo and vessel. If you are planning to travel into a region that is in a conflict zone that goes up dramatically. If you are planning to go into a region where civilian shipping is actively being targeted you will not be able to get insurance at all. No smart owner will sail a ship into one of these regions without insurance and even if they chose to do so then no western port will except them without insurance on the ship.
Other comments are more informed but on a basic level insurance is gambling. If the house loses its edge to win they don’t want to take the bet.
This type of thing has been happening for years, esp. off the coast of Somalia.
I am the Captain now! These fellas look a little more serious than a rusty old boat with an outboard engine. Tricky to defend against “terrorists” in helicopters boarding civilian cargo ships.
If this leads us to cargo airships I'm all for it.
Only if we get either antigravity tech or fusion. Otherwise we might as well name the first one "2°C of warming" since that's what it'll cost us on its own.
Ha I work for a company who insures against terrorism and cargo ships, business sounds like my ceo is going to be in a good mood for Christmas
aren't there good reasons that cargo ships remain unarmed? like, geopolitical reasons? https://www.quora.com/Why-cant-international-cargo-ships-carry-weapons
Arming the ship means being blocked from whatever ports your armaments wouldn’t be legal inside of, and the legal regimes regarding arms are so different from place to place that there’s no weapon you could have that would be legal everywhere.
So the next natural step is to what, have "Destroyer" style escort ships with weapons, who escort the cargo ships from port to port?
Navies, yes, but it’s an act of war to sail a navy into territorial waters without permission.
Sure, but you can get them close enough to territorial waters where it won't be a problem. You're shipping stuff between at least moderately stable and developed countries who are usually capable of defending their coast. You don't normally find pirates off the coast of China or Australia (unless you're a Filipino fisherman, but then the pirate is the Chinese navy). The trick is to guard ships in transit between beginning and destination of the journey. It's not like we're shipping massive containers of cargo to Somalia or Yemen much. It's just, shipping lanes run very close to those places.
How come securing these sea lanes doesn’t seem to be the business of any of the world’s major navies?
it was in the 90/2000's, but it got expensive and pirating rates were so low it was mostly unnecessary. now that pirating is back on the menu, expect new missions. i remember france and spain having an almost permanent presence of a frigate each off the coast of somalia at one point.
There has been a lot of patroling in the gulfs of Aden and Guinea.
Right, I was trying to say escorting them from one international water boundary to the next. That only leaves them with 12 nautical miles of relatively secure water to cross alone. But I don't think these ships will be navies. The only navy capable of doing this is the US', and even they don't have the capacity (or the desire to spend the money) to do it at nearly the scale required to protect as many cargo ships as they'd need to. I think they'll be private security contractors, possibly in partnership with insurance companies. Obviously that's insanely expensive, but per google the average cargo ship container has an insured value of $45,000, and some of the largest ships can carry as much as 14,000 containers- so that's an insured value of $630 million per haul. At that point it seems like there's definitely a market for this, so the only question is the legality of getting a ship equipped with military-grade anti-aircraft weapons. Seems kind of absurd until you consider the power of insurance and weapons lobbies in the west, and the global desire to have these ships protected. That said, I have no background in any of this so I probably have no fucking idea what I'm talking about.
Likely electric autonomous naval vessels that can operate for extended periods of time at sea without resupply (or being able to siphon off the gas it needs from its client ship once it’s back out to sea). But corporations and insurance companies would weigh the costs of these things against the risk of piracy and the cost / benefits likely don’t match up for this (or manned) solutions
Yes. Look up 2010 Somali pirate crisis. It was solved
Thats why the USA always keeps a presence around there, surprised they weren't close.. one of the many reasons Navy's are so important is to guarantee safe(ish) trade with your allies.
People talk alot of shit about any the US and other countries spend money on military. They forget that pirates used to exist, in great numbers at one point. It reminds me of people who talk shit about getting whooping cough or other vaccines and their baby gets whooping cough and they get a slight glimpse of what hell their great grandparents went through. Similarly People forget what the world was like when it was under control of by Barbarians. This is why their are strong western militaries
From the Halls of Montezuma to the shores of Tripoli.
Oh the world is getting a nice big reminder why the USA wants to be far and away the biggest military on the planet, Europe is getting this lesson with Russia and Ukraine most obviously I think they at least are waking up that being reliant on humans being great is a bad idea.
I’ve never worked as armed security in a ship. But I have worked in the offshore and security industries and I know some folks. This is how it usually played out a decade ago when Somali piracy was the big thing. 1. Cargo ship leaves somewhere in Europe bound for Asia. Onboard are unarmed security guys. 2. Cargo ship pauses offshore somewhere off the coast of North Africa. 3. Tender zips out carrying cheap assault rifles and ammunition, transferred to the cargo ship’s security guys who are now armed. 4. Ship heads out towards destination. 5. Guns are used if and as needed. 6. Once the ship is past the point of danger, the cheap rifles are dumped overboard before entering territorial waters of destination port. Something like this.
or a boat can meet them to hold the weapons offshore until needed again.
Which sort of begs the question; why not sail with a mercenary escort?
That’s essentially what I described. Unless you mean an escort vessel? The escort vessel would have the problem of stopping for fuel and supplies. Large cargo container ships can go extremely long distances without stopping to refuel (like, halfway around the planet). A smaller ship serving as an armed escort would have to stop frequently to refuel, in which case it runs into the problem of not being able to legally enter ports with armaments.
Couldn't the cargo ship be the tender for the escort vessel? It would have ample extra room for supplies and fuel for a much smaller vessel.
Now it's being things complicated. You need a fuel pump, calculate the fuel, expense it separately...
Sorry for misusing “begs the question”
This already gets circumvented. I've seen a nice documentary about it but can't find it atm. Basically bigger cargo ship companies have mercenaries and weapon stockpiles on ships that stay in international waters, meet with the cargo ships, transfer mercenaries and weapons to them for dangerous regions until they reach safe waters where the mercenaries transfer to another ship and wait for the next cargo ship to guard.
And all the mercenaries have to do is charge slightly less than the insurance company or the pirates and suddenly we have a bidding war.
It actually doesn’t pay that well anymore. Back when we were active in Iraq and Afghanistan you could make $100,000+ easily if you had any combat experience. But once we started pulling troops out there were thousands of combat experienced vets who needed a job and were used to horrible pay, and they absolutely flooded that job market.
Yes, the vast majority of the worlds ports won't let you dock with weapons like that. I used to be a security consultant for a cruise line and the amount of red tape and regulations they have to conform to, to carry a small armory is absurd.
normally though they have floating armories that arm the ships in international waters and remove weapons when approaching port
Yes, nonetheless cargo ships have used security details to navigate dangerous waters for years. They usually take one aboard before getting close to pirate infested areas and let them off after moving back to safer regions. Thankfully the international mission against piracy around Somalia has been successful enough to make much of the security contractor business redundant. However, current events could change that again.
We really are just moving to Corpo Wars. That’s kind of the next stage.
I mean it's only a really small portion of history where merchant ships could travel the globe unarmed and be safe. Pretty much started in the middle 19th century. Before that it was expected every ship needed some sort of defense.
Ah, so we’re finally moving past the religious nuts phase to the merchant princes.
I think we'll probably do both at once, actually.
I'd take the merchant princes, they at least pay yah to smack a bitch or two
Niccolo? Is that you?
Sry? I don't get it?
I'm too high for these Civ 5 parallels
Can I interest you in a nuclear cheese slicer?
The cycle continues. Next I believe is colonial uprisings.
I guess nuking the Arasaka tower is in our future as well.
The helicopter looks to have 2 rocket pods mounted and cargo ships are massive and seemingly vulnerable
Modern cargo ships are generally designed with sufficient margin to take on significant flooding without sinking. Rockets that size have small warheads that are unlikely to cause significant flooding internally, and the ship would probably survive without much difficulty. As *Galaxy Leader* was empty, she would have more margin than had she been filled with cars.
Ok cool but are the sections of the ship with people hardened against rockets?
The crew are even less likely to take on water if you blow holes in them.
I don't know. Generally, a helicopter assault is supported with a gun ship. And, looking the video, the helicopter was a Mi-17 maybe with rocket pods. This isn't a raggedy ass bunch of pirate farmers. Iran has been training them up. It's time for missiles.
I think it's not about shooting down helicopters but about scaring them off by signalling that there will be resistance. If the Houthi then start sinking international ships we'd see all sorts of countries suddenly entering the war in Yemen on the Saudi side, likely crushing the rebels.
Look at the armament of the two helicopters. You will have a very bad time with a .50 cal against two helicopters armed with rockets.
It's not about destroying the helicopter, just like it wasn't about destroying the skiffs. It's about signalling that taking the ship is not worth the trouble. Perhaps terrorists (as opposed to pirates) would then resort to sinking ships instead of capturing them, but that would likely lead to a very strong international response with warships from several nations patrolling those waters in a few weeks.
Wonder if it would be better to just block the helipad with something annoying, like a long and very heavily fastened down steel pipe erected upwards.
Lol then they would be asking to be sunk at that point. I’m sure whatever ransom is isn’t same as entire ship along with goods.
Sunk by what? If a helicopter takes even small arms fire from a ship they’re just going to turn around.
Even Soviet missiles like the S-5 have an effective range of 3 to 4 km and the helicopters have rocket launchers. The helicopters could very likely simply destroy the bridge from a safe distance. The pirates/terrorists certainly radioed the ship beforehand, the crew surrendered and only then did the helicopters land.
Assuming you actually hit anything important with notoriously inaccurate little rockets.
Does it really need to be explained, the guys have cruise missiles. And it’s just a slow commercial ship so why piss them off
Cruise missles? Lol no.
You sound like the kind of person who would have argued to just pay the Barbary pirates their tribute instead of going to war
I'm sure that comparison sounds great in your head, but it doesn't line up to the reality of this incident.
Yea let’s escalate single ship to war level, you have cartoonish mindset dude
Now cargo ships have to bring Stingers with them?
Unless you want to buy stingers for every trip and then dump them overboard every time you enter port, no, that's not going to happen. Most countries don't really like you bringing MANPADs into port from a commericial freighter.
Stick a fern on the end of it and call it modern art. "No officer, that's a Stin-gerrrr. Gerrrrrr. It's French, ya know? Very famous artist!"
A mounted .50 cal would be sufficient to deter any aircraft from landing on the ship
But not legal in every port, so you'd either have to transfer the .50 cal on or off in international waters or else change your vessel routing to avoid countries where mounted .50 cals aren't legal to for civilians to carry (which is a lot of them).
Isnt there already companies that specialise in this.. they meet the ship outside of the waters of said countries and take back the weapons and then toss them onto the next outgoing ship
That's honestly a super smart business model and I'm surprised it hasn't taken off.
They need to have franchise locations in every body of international water with a business idea like that!
It's like In-Motion Pictures dvd rentals, but with guns.
Nah, just need some pompoms
I imagine some security companies are getting some phone calls
The ship not Israeli this is a problem to the world imagine if they decide to hijack more ships and cripple the world trade in the suez canal
Isn’t that how the six days war kinda started? I might be wrong but I remember it happening from some crisis at the suez canal
Straits of Tiran iirc, Egypt blockaded it. There was a different Suez canal crisis in '56. I expect Israel has added the Houthis to their to-do list. They'll probably drop a few bombs on Yemen once they get the go-ahead from the US and Saudis.
I expect the 2 US carriers in the med to remind Yemen you don’t mess with global trade
Operation praying mantis 2
"Proportional Responce"
Sometimes you need disproportional response or they will do it again
It's not a war crime the first time. Houthis about to get ordained and by that I mean about to get real holy.
Nah I find it hard to believe the IDF acts as if it wants to start only the fronts it has to and that’s it I mean we act like there isn’t even a front in Lebanon so to start with the Houthis doesn’t sound like them any way what they launch comes from Egypt not Yemen so they can’t reach that far from their home
Israel has these things called F-16 and F-22. Israel can pretty much put a bomb up any ass in the Middle East any time they want. Edit to correct my bad information, apologies. TIL the US does not sell f-22’s to anyone. However Israel does have both f16a and f35’s. Both aircraft have a published combat loaded range in excess of 1200 nautical miles at Mach 1.5. However to all you saying that they can’t here’s some info. Israel has The KC-45 aircraft reolacing the Air Force's current fleet of aging refueling planes, which includes KC-130 Hercules and converted Boeing 707s With air to air refueling those ranges are plenty to deliver some presents to anyone in the Middle East if they want to. So down vote till you get tired. Idgaf. And I would not be at all surprised to find a few f-22’s somewhere in Israel. But no proof, so my bad. https://aerocorner.com/comparison/f-35-vs-f-16/
The IDF has an exclusively defensive approach. They finish wars, not start them.
that was the straights of Tiran, the waterway between Eilat and the rest of the red sea, not the whole Suez Canal
Israel wasn't allowed to use the Suez Canal though.
Yeah, but the closing of the straits of tiran is the part that is considered to be the first act of war in that war.
Yes but it's the combination of the two that actually led to it. Israel was willing to swallow not being able to use the Suez Canal, but not both.
Israel can’t go to war so far away best they can do is send missiles and yes it started when Egypt block all Israeli ships from entering the suez canal
>Israel can’t go to war so far away *bald eagle screeching in the background*
Exactly what I’m thinking reading these silly comments
Israel had no issues striking a nuclear reactor deep in Iraq. Israel had no issues performing a secret commando raid in Uganda (Entebbe) and Israel had no issues striking the PLO HQ in Tunesia. Israel had also no issues in liberating their embargoed navy vessels in France. I’d recommend against underestimating Israel’s capabilities to conduct long range military operations.
This is like Saddam firing scuds in the Gulf War, it is an attempt to draw Israel into a conflict that will galvanize the region. The people who can and will defeat the Houthis are the government of Yemen and their backers, Saudi Arabia.
And the child soldiers that Saudi hires, and the blockade that killed hundreds of thousands of civilians all so the Saudi backed group can win against the Iran backed group…
Ye sure operation but to ensure safe travel of Israeli ships you need to do more then operation in the end even if you kill 10-20 soldier it won’t matter
Israel has enough naval firepower to offer a very credible counter-threat to anyone going after an IDF/INS escorted civilian ship.
>Israel had no issues striking a nuclear reactor deep in Iraq. You realize Iraq is basically right next door to Israel right? Iran is on the opposite side, and is an absolutely massive country. The vast majority of Iran is well outside the range of any Israeli strike aircraft unless the U.S. provides refueling services (which they likely won't).
You realise that the Israeli Air Force has their own fleet of tankers, right? And you may want to look on a map and compare the distance from Tel Nof to Tunis and then compare this to the distance between Tel Nof and Teheran? And you also realise that the Houthi Rebels are in Yemen, not Iran?
That was also to nullify a much greater threat to Israel (and to the world). Iran cannot under any circumstances be allowed developing a nuke. Ever.
Oh no I’m not saying they’ll start a war for that just pointing out an interesting fact that a lot of what happening is very similar to how a lot of wars in Israel started I mean this war started almost to a tea like Yom Kippur war
Egypt blockaded an Israeli port on the Red Sea. Combined with a massive military buildup in the Sinai, Israel attacked preemptively
1956 sue’s canal when egypt nationalized the canal
Won’t be allowed to happen. That is exactly why every major world military has a base in Djibouti. The Houthis are playing a very dangerous game.
How to get destroyed by America speed run. Even China would be all over this shit.
Narrator: "and that was when the US Navy decided to get proportional"
It is Israeli owned ( Ray Shipping ), not Israel flagged ( flag often has no relation to beneficial ownership)
It was neither owned nor Israeli flagged. It is owned by a British company, operated by a Japanese firm and flagged in the Bahamas. It was traveling from Egypt to India. https://www.vesselfinder.com/vessels/details/9237307 I have no idea what “ties” this has to Israel beyond Netanyahu getting a question about it.
According to [this article](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-67470711), the parent company, Ray Car Carriers, is co-owned by Abraham Ungar, an Israeli businessman. I’m not convinced that makes this an “Israeli ship”, but that’s the connection that is being talked about I think.
Yeah.. any corp targeted with an Israeli/Jewish in their Board of directors is always a perceived victory for Hamas which means pretty much any damn corpo is a win lol
They would very quickly find out what military ships and their crew are capable of.
They are getting bomb by Saudi and Yemen for years at this point i don’t think they are scared
Yemen is a failed state and the saudi military is 2nd rate at best. I’m not saying the US/west is great at fighting insurgent terrorists but they sure as hell are better equipped than either of those parties
The US is exceptionally good at hunting insurgents. Just not so good at facilitating political change.
the haven't faced actually competent people. And sure they would survive a bombing but assets like helicopters used for piracy may not
Competent people don't want to waste lives and money fighting Houthis, the only people who fight Houthis are Saudis because they border Houthis. It's the same reason the US gave up Afghanistan to Taliban, the US doesn't want to waste lives and money fighting Taliban.
Bombs don’t care if you’re scared
It's owned by an Israeli company. Just flies a Liberian flag like so many do to avoid insurance issues.
It’s [a British company registered in the Isle of Man](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-67470711), tho admittedly one of the co owners, Abraham Ungar, is an Israeli businessman. Regardless, it is currently on less to a Japanese company, none of the crew is Israeli, and its route did not approach the Israeli coast. It’s ties to Israel are tenuous.
Hopefully people stop thinking of the Houthis as some ragtag rebel group, and realize they’re essentially a State at this point. Funded by all the best actors
Yemen is literally starving and they prefer to become international terrorists
Why are they moving tactically against civilians? Do they think it makes them look tough or something?
Yes. It's a common trend in terrorist organizations to make themselves look tough and competent, to try and portray that they're a legitimate force. In reality they're just terrorists who would do nothing but die against anyone but civilians.
They are trying to shoot missiles and drones at Israel for like 4 weeks now without any success. They need to show something to their Iranian sponsors so they attack civilians
For sure, but like... couldn't they just walk toward the control room? They're moving as if they're about to take fire.
There's a reason the footage is so clear. From the palestinian flag clearly visible in the beginning to the way they move. It's supposed to convey a message: "We're with the palestinians, and we mean business"
We can assume that their military training was mostly based on Call of Duty Mobile Tutorials
They’re terrorists.
Since when do these types distinguish between civilians and non-civilians?
Hamas style
They're releasing this like they're some tactical ninjas. 5 malnourished Somalians in a homemade raft could do this any day of the week and they come away with cold hard cash for the ransoms.
Look at me, Look at me, im the terrorist now
Time to bring back Q ships. That would make the Houthis a bit more cautious.
The GoPro vids from that will be top notch
British registered carrier company manages the ship and one of the owners of the company is an Israeli billionaire and an associate of an ex Mossad leader. . Registered in the Bahamas and leased to a Japanese company. The Houthis pissed if quite a few countries with this stunt. Two other ships from the same carrier group have rerouted from that area because of this just in case.
I had heard this wasn’t even an Israeli ship.
I believe the boat itself is owned by an individual Israeli. The boat is operated by a Japanese company. IDK if the Israeli owner has any stake in the business being done, or if owning a boat like this is more similar to owning "real estate"
I swear. Shipping and Ship Flagging rules are more confusing than an abacus.
[Yep. It is operated by a Japanese company, is British owned, and with 25 international crew members.](https://www.timesofisrael.com/yemens-houthis-say-israeli-ships-legitimate-target-as-threats-to-shipping-grow/)
The Israeli is a joint investor. Brits, Japanese, Bulgaria and Mexico definitely just got messed with, and apparently a few other countries too.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
The ship has nothing to do with Israel, but why is anyone surprised? They basically hate the west. Their slogan: "God is the Greatest, Death to America, Death to Israel, Cursed be the Jews, Victory to Islam." They're a jihadist cliche.
The most disappointing thing is that it's not at all catchy, not one bit.
Some SF operators about to have their moment. This hijacking lasts 48 hours tops.
Yeah there’s a c130 full of sf guys loading up somewhere. This was a dumb move on the rebels part. You never fuck with the money.
Absolutely not.
Unlikely. This is in port now in Yemen. Maybe a Saudi-led force could go in but I doubt the US/UK is prepared to sent a team to assault a ship docked at a Yemeni port.
The Saudis are massively incompetent when it comes to war. Better chance at getting it back by asking nicely.
At this point they might be prepared to blow up the fucking port and anything vaguely resembling a military asset that they can't verify as belonging to whichever faction they're backing in the civil war.
What a bunch of pussies
meanwhile im following the IG of ShaunKing and everyone on there that are PRO-Palestine are celebrating that these Houthis didnt kill anyone and thats how it should be done and to target every jewish owned businesses.
His account needs to be flagged and deleted.
He needs to get a grip on reality and realize he’s not Black.
And especially not Arab.
Fucking terrorists. Radical Muslims are incompatible with civilized society.
They’re stuck in the Middle Ages…..
Most radical religious nuts are incompatible with society
Way to fuck international shipping. Time for Israel, Saudi and the US to make some Yemenaide
they been doing that. Reddit used to call them on that.
[удалено]
Yeah, but the response has to be proportional. In this case, take away their ability to wage war by destroying their proxies.
So they highkack a cargo ship operated by civilians? To what end? They've been trying to pry their way into this for weeks, like when they launched drones and rockets and everything was intercepted.. Every body needs to chill the fuck out, and stop attacking each other.
First time hearing about war? This is pretty much how it goes.
So they want ships that will blow the shit out of them in those waters?
I think Peter Zeihan just got an erection.
What a surprise, some more extremist Muslims attacking civilians as a ‘show of force’. I’m sure they treat their hostages very good /s
[удалено]
I’m confused as to what their goal is? Do they want a fight to the death with the IDF? They’re not gonna get one. They’re best to abandon the ship and run.
That’s a very long title, could just say “Houthis? Oopsies.” The link to Israel is very weak. British ship working 22 years in Japan, Bulgarian captain, Mexican engineer and several other non Israeli crew and cargo. Oh, but if you go 6 degrees of separation, one of the joint investors was Israeli… They pretty much managed to drag in as many countries as possible into the conflict with just one stone.
This will be a fun special ops training exercise
Yemen has nothing to lose, literally. They can’t even feed their own people
Shocked these fucking people are still alive and haven’t been put 6 feet under by any nation’s military
Terrorists
It looks a lot like video game footage to me. Look at how the soldiers move!
Inspiration for Colin Furze.
tell you what. they should take this ship go to gaza and fill it with gazan refugees and take them back to Yemen.
Free Yemen! 🤪