Pirate Horizons in the Gulf of Guinea

This article is the second installment of a three part series on the evolution of piracy in the Gulf of Guinea. The initial background piece can be found here, while an appraisal of counter-piracy strategies and initiatives will appear next month.

Pirate incidents in the Gulf of Guinea (courtesy OceansUSLIVE)
                  2012 Pirate incidents in the Gulf of Guinea (courtesy OCEANUSLive)

It was proclaimed in 2012 that the Somali pirate business model had been broken by a combination of coordinated naval patrols, heightened vessel security, and the ubiquitous presence of armed guards aboard valuable ships. The International Maritime Bureau (IMB) attributed only 71 attacks to Somali pirates in the first 11 months of 2012, down from 237 the previous year. However, attacks are on the rise across the continent in the Gulf of Guinea, with 51 incidents recorded for the same period.

While several commentators, particularly within the shipping industry, have raised the alarm that the Gulf of Guinea will overtake the Horn of Africa as the world’s piracy hotspot, very distinct geopolitical conditions prevent the Somali business model from being easily transported to West Africa. To begin with, it is the abject failure of onshore authority in Somalia’s pirate-prone regions that allows the hijackers to keep their prey anchored for months at a time while they conduct ransom negations. By contrast, the states bordering the Gulf of Guinea are weak and corrupt, but not failed.

West African pirates may not yet be able to secure multi-million dollar ransoms, but they have begun to emulate many of the successful tactics of their Somali counterparts. An analysis of recent trends demonstrates that the region’s highly organized pirate gangs have altered their tactics, targets and hunting grounds in order to counteract efforts against them.

Geographic Displacement

A 2009 government amnesty offering to militants in the Niger Delta is credited for temporarily reducing Nigerian piracy, as the number of incidents reported fell from a high of 42 in 2007 to a low of 10 in 2011. These figures masked the full extent of the piracy problem, however, as it is estimated that 50-80% of pirate attacks go unreported in West Africa. While the IMB reported 40 incidents of piracy in Nigerian waters in 2008, an author’s interviews with corporate security managers working in the region found there to be 173 confirmed attacks that year.

While Nigerian waters were relatively calm in 2011, neighboring Benin—which had only reported one act of piracy in the previous five years—was suddenly struck with a spree of at least 20 attacks. The Nigeria-based criminal syndicates, pressured by heighted security in their own waters, had moved westward to find easier targets. Highlighting the vulnerability of vessels operating in the thought-to-be-safe waters of Benin, eight of the 20 vessels attacked were successfully hijacked and had large quantities of equipment, fuel or cargo stolen.

As a response to the shared threat they face, the maritime forces of Nigeria and Benin began engaging in joint naval patrols in late 2011. Predictably, incidences of piracy declined in Beninois waters but were soon to reemerge elsewhere.

Though it has only 34 miles of coastline, West Africa’s 2012 piracy hotspot was Togo. The IMB recorded 15 pirate attacks in Togolese waters last year, more incidents than in the past five years combined. Other regional states that have seen a sharp increase in piracy include Ghana and Côte d’Ivoire, the latter marking the furthest point west that the Nigeria-based criminals have expanded.

Despite an increase in naval patrols, attacks have also increased once again in Nigerian waters. The fight against piracy in the region was recently likened to sitting on a balloon—“push down on one side and pops up at the other; push on the other side and it pops up somewhere else.”

According to maritime risk consultant Michael Frodl, the pirates are moving further out to sea not just to avoid coastal patrols, “but also to take advantage of ships letting down their guard in waters assumed to be safer.” The majority of ships attacked off Benin and Togo in recent years have been at anchor or drifting, meaning that evasive maneuvers cannot be taken.

The limited range of the pirates’ small skiffs once acted as a check on their offshore expansion. Following the Somali model however, West African pirates have overcome this limitation by using motherships—converted fishing trawlers that allow supplies and multiple skiffs to be transported further afield for more extended piracy ventures. Attacks have now been launched against vessels that are over 120nm from the coast.

A Change in Tactics and Targets

Though Niger Delta-based insurgents were able to launch a number of concerted attacks against offshore oil infrastructure in the mid to late 2000s, the majority of maritime crime in the region has been a low-tech and opportunistic affair. This appears to have changed in the last two years, however, as a number of notable attacks reveal a high level of sophistication and operational capacity on the part of the criminal gangs.

The pirates that hijacked the Abu Dhabi Star off the coast of Lagos in September demonstrated military-like organization, as they swarmed the vessel with four high-powered speed boats, boarded with a dozen heavily armed men in full combat dress, and immediately disabled the captured ship’s communications equipment. Signifying advanced logistical capabilities, the MT Orfeas was recently hijacked from anchorage off Côte d’Ivoire and then sailed 600nm back to the waters of Nigeria where its captors pilfered 3,000 tons of gasoline. The kidnapping of crew members from the tug Bourbon Liberty appears to exhibit a heightened level of operational intelligence, as the ship was attacked at the precise moment when its escort vessel had returned to shore to resupply.

These attacks are by no means atypical, as a 2011 UN assessment mission concluded that the region’s pirates were “resorting to sophisticated modes of operations and utilizing heavy weapons.”

Diversifying the Business Model

Though cargo theft remains the primary modus operandi of the Gulf of Guinea’s pirates, there has been a sharp rise in incidents of hostage taking during oil bunkerings. Early 2012 witnessed a doubling in the number of attacks on oil tankers, with periods of captivity often lasting days as vessels are directed to another pirate-controlled ship where the fuel is transferred and then taken elsewhere for sale. While these extended duration robberies were once rare events in the region, there have been almost 20 such hijackings recorded in the last two years.

Bunkering has become part of a larger international web as Lebanese and Eastern European criminal interests reportedly arrange the black market sale of stolen crude and refined cargos. Shipping industry guidelines have also recognized that recent attacks appear to be the result of “intelligence-led planning,” where ships transporting valuable products such as gasoline are “targeted in very well coordinated and executed operations.” In this sense, Nigerian gangs are better connected to global criminal networks than their Somali counterparts, as first hand research has largely dismissed earlier reports that Somalia’s pirates were being financed and fed vessel intelligence by international cartels.

The increase in large scale bunkering has coincided with a brazen string of kidnappings for ransom in the Nigerian littoral. Though whole ships cannot be held for Somali-style ransom, West African gangs have proven apt at kidnapping foreign personnel as a source of additional income. When the Bourbon Liberty was hijacked off Nigeria in October seven European sailors were taken hostage while the Nigerian crew members and the ship itself were left to drift. The vessel’s French owners secured their employees release two weeks later through an alleged ransom payment.

Shipping and oil companies attempt to keep ransom negotiations confidential so as to not encourage further kidnappings, but the crime continues to be a lucrative venture. December witnessed three separate maritime kidnappings off the Nigerian coast in which a total of 12 expatriate personnel were specifically targeted and taken hostage. Examined together, rising incidences of both extended duration bunkerings and kidnap for ransom indicate that the myriad criminal syndicates operating in the Gulf of Guinea have developed diversified business models.

Constant Vigilance

Maritime crime is now a transnational emergency in the Gulf of Guinea. Already spreading from Nigeria to Benin, Togo, and Côte d’Ivoire, it is likely that Liberia, Cameroon and Equatorial Guinea will come under increased stress from pirates and oil thieves this year. Though the crisis is regional, the inter-governmental response has been limited to joint patrols between Nigeria and Benin and a series of security meetings that include other states.

A central problem is lack of maritime security capacity in the region. Nigeria is the only state that possesses a frigate, corvette or aerial surveillance capabilities, but it has thus far found it difficult to bring these assets to bear in a coordinated manner for a sustained length of time. Private security providers are similarly hampered by the fact that national law prevents them from deploying armed guards aboard ships operating in the territorial waters of regional states.

It is imperative that regional states, the international community and private actors adopt a more proactive and coordinated approach to combating maritime crime in the Gulf of Guinea. So long as maritime security provision remains piecemeal and nationally orientated, the robbers will remain one step ahead of the cops.

James Bridger is a Maritime Security Consultant and piracy specialist at Delex Systems Inc. He can be reached at jbridger@delex.com

MFP 2: Investing for the Maritime Future

What should your Navy/Coast Guard invest in more that it is not investing enough in today?

This is the second in our series of posts from our Maritime Futures Project.  Note: The opinions and views expressed in these posts are those of the authors alone and are presented in their personal capacity.  They do not necessarily represent the views of their parent institution U.S. Department of Defense, the U.S. Navy, any other agency, or any other foreign government.

LT Alan Tweedie, USNR:

Maintenance.  An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.  Creating maintainable and upgradeable ships with long service lives is the key.

YN2(SW) Michael George, USN:

Some believe the most important investment is money for maintenance and maintenance skills.
Some believe the most important investment is money for maintenance and maintenance skills.

The Navy should invest in greater preventative maintenance efforts aboard ships as well as for shore commands.  By always granting repair contracts to “the lowest bidder” we get what we pay for.  This is something military members often hear about, and it definitely seems to ring true from my experience.

From touring some Japanese Maritime Self Defense Force (JMSDF) ships and seeing the upkeep and quality in maintenance, their ships appear to be more “ready to go” than our own, despite U.S. ships having generally superior weapons and technology.

LT Drew Hamblen, USN:

Network security, unmanned aerial systems (UAS), over-the-horizon (OTH) communications, and data-storage capacity – my squadron’s share drive for 250+ personnel holds less than my 20GB smart phone.

LCDR Joe Baggett, USN:

Improved and expanded theater ISR (Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance) capabilities.  Adversaries are unlikely to attempt conventional force-on-force conflict.  The days of Carl von Clausewitz’s “Total War” and theory of capital ships fighting capital ships to decide the outcome of war seem no longer valid.  To the extent that maritime forces can be openly challenged, plans to do so will almost certainly rely on asymmetric attack and surprise, achieved through stealth, deception, or ambiguity.  Therefore, to be effective:

– Our ISR capabilities must include innovative ways to penetrate the designs of adversaries, and discern their capabilities and vulnerabilities while supporting the full range of military operations.
– We significantly increase our commitment to advance maritime domain awareness (MDA) and expanded ISR capabilities and capacities.
– Maritime forces must be committed and have the capability to enhance information sharing, underpinning and energizing our capability to neutralize threats to our nation as far from our shores as possible.

We must remove the possibility of an adversary gaining the initiative over forward-deployed forces and ensure we provide decision makers with the information they need to deter aggression and consider escalatory measures in advance of such gambits.

Rex Buddenberg, U.S. Naval Post Graduate School:

Integrating abilities.  The single most important one here is investing only in radio-WAN (wide area network) communications systems, that is, routable networks (whether or not there is a satellite involved).  All other (i.e. stovepipe) comms technologies should only get maintenance money adequate to carry them through a reasonable life cycle.

Programmatically, we’re investing millions in new platforms (true for both the Navy and Coast Guard) but by comparison are investing little in integrating information system capabilities – and those investments we are making are in more stovepipes (e.g. MUOS, Rescue 21).

The venerable Harpoon: ready for an upgrade?
The venerable Harpoon: Ready for an upgrade?

Bryan McGrath, Director, Delex Consulting, Studies and Analysis:

I believe the U.S. Navy is insufficiently investing in building up its stock of precision-guided munitions of all types.

LT Chris Peters, USN:

Maybe we’re already working on this, but I would like to see an anti-ship cruise missile (ASCM) capability on Flt IIA (Arleigh Burke-class) DDGs, as well as a long-term upgrade for the Harpoon missiles.  I see the absence of ASCMs on the majority of our DDGs as a significant weakness in SuW (Surface Warfare). 

Sebastian Bruns, Fellow, Institute for Security, University of Kiel, Germany:

It appears that the German armed forces are, once more, approaching cross-roads.  With the publically desired withdrawal of forces from Afghanistan, and noticeable conflict fatigue in German society, it will be crucial to learn the right lessons from this conflict.  Some aspects have already been thoroughly reviewed and analyzed, such as inter-service and inter-agency approaches to counter-insurgency, and respective lessons (to be) learned. 

In light of the dim future of Afghanistan and the real, lasting effects of the Western engagement in Central Asia, however, a neo-isolationist reflex could well hinder participation in expeditionary operations of any sort in the near future.  The German Navy and those who are supportive of its cause (be they in government, the armed forces, or general public) must continue to work to counter sea-blindness and such isolationist tendencies.  There can hardly be too little investment in generating greater understanding of the leverage of seapower.  At the same time, it is difficult to put a dollar (or, for that matter, a Euro) price tag on such a comprehensive approach.  From a procurement point of view, it will be essential to streamline bureaucratic processes to allow shipbuilding and aircraft procurement to be quicker and more reliable than in the past. 

Felix Seidler, seidlers-sicherheitspolitik.net, Germany:

If there were money to invest, Germany would be well advised to increase its expeditionary naval capabilities.  Besides the proposed Joint Support Ship, a multinational LHD (Mistral-class) or medium-size aircraft carrier run by Germany and allied countries would be a great step forward in capabilities.  

CDR Chuck Hill, USCG (Ret.):

The U.S. Coast Guard needs to cut its manpower requirement because that is where most of the money is spent.  It needs to look for opportunities to replace manpower with technology.

CDR Chris Rawley, USNR:

Some think investments now in sea-based ISR could pay dividends for a future fleet.
Some think investments now in sea-based ISR could pay dividends for a future fleet.

First, the U.S. Navy should acquire at least 50 small, affordable ships.  The Navy needs multi-purpose ships that can be built in large numbers to conduct the day-to-day operations that are running larger combatants, amphibious ships, and their crews ragged.  These ships need self-defense weapons, high endurance, flight decks, surplus berthing for embarking detachments of various types, as much bandwidth as possible, and not much else.  They may be sized like a frigate or corvette, but don’t have to look like one.  Unfortunately, LCS does not appear to fit the bill as its costs (including the still-unfinished mission packages) will not allow for large purchases during the fiscal shoal waters that DoD budgets are approaching.  The argument is routinely made that small combatants cannot be built cheaply any more, yet our allies continue to crank out small, capable ships at relatively affordable price points.

Second, the Navy needs more sea-based ISR and unmanned strike.  We can’t kill targets that we can’t rapidly find and classify.  Basing remotely piloted aircraft ashore is dicey and getting more difficult every day.  We can mitigate this by getting long-dwell ISR to sea as quickly as possible.  The key is to do it affordably.

Bret Perry, Student, Georgetown University:

When compared to the rest of the fleet, the U.S. Navy’s minesweepers lack the amount of attention they deserve.   This is not surprising as historically America’s Baltic allies in NATO took the lead on this role.  However, these allies’ willingness to promptly deploy these assets to assist the U.S. in countering security threats in the Persian Gulf and Asia is questionable.  Thus, the U.S. should attempt to develop a more capable, advanced minesweeping fleet of its own to fill this potential gap. 

LT Jake Bebber, USN:

Cryptology is broken in the U.S. Navy.  One of the biggest factors is the lack of quality training our cryptologic technicians receive prior to arriving in the fleet.  Today, young cryptologists receive the proverbial “fire hose” stream of out-of-date Power Points and CBT (computer based training).  Often, they are given instruction on equipment that is no longer used.  If they are provided training on up-to-date equipment, it is in a sterile, laboratory setting.  The “basics” of cryptologic reporting, maintenance of equipment, and analysis suffer as cutbacks to training budgets lead to reduced training time and preparation.  The Navy needs to invest in cryptologic training to start rebuilding our maritime cryptologic capabilities.

 

Results of informal poll in CIMSEC’s Internal Discussion Facebook Group

In What Should Your Coast Guard/Navy Invest More that it is not investing enough in today?

Frigate/Corvette-sized multi-purpose ships: 10  77%
Sea-based ISR: 4  31%
Submarine assets: 3   27%
Augmenting manpower with tech: 2  18%
Surface vessel anti-ship cruise missiles: 2 18%
Minesweeping: 1 8%
Maintenance: 1 8%
Expeditionary naval capabilities: 1 8%
Unmanned strike: 1 8%
Long-range anti-ship naval aaviation: 1 8%
precision guided munitions: 0
Communication-systems integration: 0
Replacing manpower with technology: 0

Total # of voters: 13

MFP 1: Reducing and Protecting Maritime Budgets

If your Navy/Coast Guard is facing fiscal hard times, what areas of the budget should be targeted first? What should be targeted last? Why?

This is the first in our series of posts from our Maritime Futures Project The project is designed to illustrate possible developments in naval affairs and maritime security in the near-, medium-, and long-term tomorrows.  As such, our brave contributors are making predictions about the future challenges, opportunities, and technologies for maritime professionals – as well as things we’d like to see come to pass.  They are also hazarding recommendations, based on those predictions, for the tough choices faced by many of our sea services.

Note: The opinions and views expressed in these posts are those of the authors alone and are presented in their personal capacity.  They do not necessarily represent the views of their parent institution U.S. Department of Defense, the U.S. Navy, any other agency, or any other foreign government.

Pick 2?
                                Pick 2?

While we were fortunate to receive some responses from international contributors, most of the submissions came from contributors in the U.S.  As such, the majority focus on the effects of the multiple complications and ‘threats’ to the U.S. Navy’s budget and how cuts could best be absorbed (much more seriously than I did here).  Major acquisition programs such as the DDG-1000, F-35B, and LCS were singled-out for the first cuts, but so were things like the number of government civilians and ships’ steaming hours.  On the flip-side, the F-35C and the large-deck amphibs to support them – to potentially lessen the pressures on carrier presence, were highlighted by some as items in the budget to protect, along with areas such training, readiness, and R&D.  As expected from a group of people with maritime interests, there is a general belief that cutting can be dangerous if not done right.  See also the results of our internal informal poll at the bottom, based on the suggestions of these contributors.

CDR Chris Rawley, USNR:

First:  The U.S. Navy has too many programs currently on the books that are simply unaffordable and threaten overall shipbuilding numbers.  The F-35C (the carrier-version of the Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter) is probably first among these.  The F-35B (The short take-off/vertical launch version) is still a viable program because it allows LHA/LHD ships to become small aircraft carriers for strike.  Especially for its cost, the DDG-1000 doesn’t bring significant war-fighting capabilities not present in other ship types. Some of the more superficial personnel programs should be examined with a critical eye for budget cuts, starting with the disastrous Task Force Uniform.

Last:  Training pipelines, maintenance, and logistics infrastructure (including Combat Logistics Force (CLF) ships) should not be cut any further.  The U.S. Navy has paid a price in readiness for the cuts these areas took last decade.  The foundations of readiness cannot be reconstituted rapidly in a crisis.

LT Drew Hamblen, USN:

Efficiencies:  Fiscal and man-hour efficiencies could be gained by following a naval aviation squadron model similar to the Air Force’s division of labor. They have been successful in managing their units without overloading pilots by reducing the number of pilots and instead using more admin and maintenance professionals that do not fly to focus on those tasks.

First:  We could cut our overall manning and increase the proficiency/flight hours per pilot by focusing their efforts on their primary jobs instead of splitting their time with collateral duties that require significant training and frequent turnover.  An admin/maintenance professional would not have to relearn his non-flying duties every 5 months.  Pilots could spend more time improving their skills.  An additional possible configuration would see some of the admin duties performed by personnel in a non-deployable status, with their workload shifted to augmented admin departments on surface ships’ to cover the squadrons’ needs – but that would require additional training and personnel for surface ships.

Last:  Flight hour funding should not be cut unless the number of pilots is reduced.  Reducing pilot numbers requires a reduction in collateral duties.

Felix Seidler, seidlers-sicherheitspolitik.net, Germany:

For my country of Germany, what we should not target for cuts are our submarine and counter-mine capabilities.  Here, Germany has unique capabilities, should be preserved for joint missions with our allies.  Moreover, there’s not much left that can be targeted.  Thus, to achieve any savings while still preserving maritime capabilities, all future projects should proceed under cooperative agreements with allied countries to pool or share naval assets.  The proposed Joint Support Ships for the German Navy could be purchased as a common project with countries like France, the Netherlands, Denmark, or Poland.

Sebastian Bruns, Fellow, Institute for Security, University of Kiel, Germany:

The German Navy has just over 15,000 people and is the smallest branch of the German military.  With the end of conscription in 2011, it has been increasingly difficult to recruit qualified personnel.  At the same time, the whole Bundeswehr is undergoing another, very ambitious reform.

Germany's most important maritime asset?
    Germany’s most important maritime asset?

The German Navy will give up all eight of their old work-horses, the F-122 frigates of the Bremen-class (built in the 1980s) which are to be replaced by the planned four frigates of the Baden-Württemberg-F125-class (to join the fleet between 2016 and 2018).  Moreover, the fast-attack craft component of the Navy will be withdrawn from service.  Diesel submarines of the 206A-class have already been decommissioned, cutting the German Navy’s number of submarines in half by the stroke of a pen (only a handful of new state-of-the-art submarines of the 212A-class remain).  The four new corvettes of the Braunschweig-class have been plagued by design challenges and mechanical failures, but have seen their first operational deployments in late 2012.  The future plan of the German Navy calls for up to two Joint Support Ships (JSS), but it remains to be seen if that can be arranged, what design will be chosen, and whether the funds for these vessels can be made available.  It should also be interesting to watch whether – as this pundit hopes – such an ambitious project will go hand-in-hand with a very desirable political debate about the role and value of seapower for German foreign and security policy.

The most sought-after investments for the German Navy, in this analyst’s opinion, are (1) the replacement of the aging Sea King (SAR) heavy helicopters and the mid-term replacement of the P3-Orion maritime patrol aircraft.  (2) A capable JSS must be on time, on budget, and meet the real operational needs (this would mandate an even larger investment in something akin to a naval or maritime security strategy).  (3) German participation in a sea-based BMD is also very desirable.  (4) More generally speaking, the attractiveness of the naval force as an employer must be enhanced to recruit personnel in sufficient strength and quality.

Dr. Robert Farley, Professor, University of Kentucky:

This is a very difficult question.  I think that, given the missions they’ve been tasked with, both the USN and USCG are at the limits of their capabilities.  If absolutely necessary, force cuts should be balanced in order to prevent creating holes in the force; the services should maintain a balance of surface, air, and subsurface capabilities.  While I don’t relish the idea of cutting the nuclear deterrent, I think that the United States could probably manage with 6-8 SSBNs instead of the current 10.

Bryan McGrath, Director, Delex Consulting, Studies and Analysis:

If the U.S. Navy is facing fiscal hard times, it is only because senior U.S. decision makers do not have the courage to think strategically, preferring as they do to issue equal or nearly equal cuts to the Armed Services so as not to upset the “Joint” applecart, nor to unduly gore the oxen of particularly powerful constituencies on Capitol Hill.  Were the courage to exist, the Navy would likely receive higher appropriations, in proportion to its strategic importance to the national security of the United States.  Given the unlikelihood that such courage exists, I then move to answer the questions posed.

Assuming that the Navy must be cut, I would privilege readiness, capability, and R&D over capacity.  This means, I would cut ship and airwing strength through early retirements, dramatically if need be, in order to retain, sustain, and obtain high-end warfighting capability.  As for what should be targeted last, I believe any cuts to the procurement of precision-guided munitions should be avoided.  Stocks of such weapons must be increased.  Please remember—these suggestions are made given a requirement to decrease Navy Total Obligation Authority (TOA).  I consider such a requirement to be strategically inane.

CDR Chuck Hill, USCG (Ret.):

The funding structure of the Coast Guard needs an overhaul.  It has never been a good fit in any of the Departments it has been assigned to.  A multi-purpose agency does not seem to integrate well in a government that seems able to deal with only one objective at a time.  The Coast Guard is overseen by too many Congressional committees with divergent interest, most of whom see only small parts of the Coast Guard.  Most significantly, as an armed force, it is part of the nation’s maritime security apparatus, but because it is not funded under DOD, relatively little attention is given to either its wartime role or funding for that role.

The Coast Guard has already fallen on hard times.  Congress is attempting to cut spending at a time when, because of the cyclical nature of its shipbuilding, Coast Guard funding needs to be increased rather than cut.  Many ships will be over 50 years old before they are replaced. Unfortunately it appears the Coast Guard needs to cut current operations to fund investment in future capabilities.

Bret Perry, Student, Georgetown University:

Pick 1?
                               Pick 1?

As a younger member of Generation Y, the idea of making serious cuts because of fiscal pressures is still quite foreign.  Nevertheless, a procurement that requires further scrutiny is the U.S. Navy’s Littoral Combat Ship (LCS), specifically the Independence-class ships.  It’s not that I disagree with purpose of the LCS class, but building both designs during fiscally challenging times is unreasonable.  Although the Freedom and Independence classes each have their own pros and cons, I believe that the Freedom-class is more likely to reach the requirements originally envisioned for the LCS.

Despite being just as controversial as the LCS, the F-35B should be one of the programs last targeted for cuts because of its strategic importance.  With the U.S. attempting to undertake its “pivot” to Asia and continuing to maintain two carriers in the Persian Gulf, America’s carrier capabilities will remain stressed.  Although the USMC’s LHDs do not completely replace the power projected by an aircraft carrier, they do help relieve some of this stress by serving as a sea-based platform for a 5th generation aircraft, the F-35B.

Chris Putko, JIATF South:

Across the board, the question is no longer “if” the services/combatant commands/task forces are experiencing fiscal tightening, but how.  We at JIATF South are getting our MPA (Maritime Patrol Aircraft) hours and ship deployments (USN FFGs, various USCG vessels) slashed.  Since our JOA (Joint Operational Area) is so big – the CARIB (Caribbean) and EASTPAC (Eastern Pacific), intel plays a huge part in getting what few assets we have under our TACON (tactical control) where they need to be, and thankfully, our intel support has been great.  Finding additional methods and technologies to enhance the targeting of illicit traffickers would be a great area to allocate additional monies, especially in an asset-constrained environment.

On the flip side, I think if cuts have to be introduced (and they do), I think it should be on personnel, specifically government civilians.  Having served in multiple “good deal” duty stations, the revolving door of people getting out of the service only to take a pay increase and accept a position as a civilian in the same command is all too common.  Everyone likes a good deal, but profligate hiring/promoting has become the norm, especially in duty stations in which there is a relatively higher local standards of living.

YN2(SW) Michael George, USN:

If the Navy were facing fiscal difficulties (which it may already be), I would first curtail the number of times ships are required to get underway.  Certainly there are a number of reasons to police our waterways and there are a number of reasons to get underway, but when it costs so much each time for this undertaking, I believe that there could be much more activity consolidated into fewer underways.

The last thing I would cut back on is difficult, but one thing that comes to mind is medical care.  Serving in any military branch is a potentially dangerous undertaking, and what Tricare offers is one of the major aspects of Service that keeps the Navy (and other branches) so appealing.

LT Jake Bebber, USN:

I’ll take a contrarian view on this for a moment.  While I have no doubt that one can easily find waste in the Department of Defense or Department of the Navy (or any public or private organization with more than two people), is this the right question to ask?  I think not.  The better question is … what is our national security policy, what is our strategy to achieve those policy objectives, and how does the U.S. Navy fit into that strategy?  From there, we ask:  based on that strategy, what force structure will permit the Navy to fulfill its mission, and how much will that cost?  The emphasis must be on matching funding to strategic objectives, not “cutting waste” for its own sake.  Cutting top-line budget numbers achieves no strategic objective and does not put the Navy in position to fulfill its primary mission of fighting and winning the nation’s wars.  My message to policy makers is this:  you tell me what you want to accomplish, and I’ll tell you what force structure you need to do that mission.  From there, we can discuss costs.

Alan Tweedie, Colorado:

The Navy seems to be in a perpetual budget crisis.  If you ask the leadership they always seem to be running at a profound shortage.  The best way to improve the fiscal situation for our Navy is to build ships with longer planned service lives rather than investing in new platforms.  Take Oliver Hazard Perry FFG’s, the U.S. Navy is almost done with the class and is moving on with LCS, yet most of the OHP’s are still in service… in other navies.  If we had elected to improve and modernize the class rather than sell them off we could be providing adequate combat capability with much less investment.  This meme runs through the whole Defense Department, we just love shiny new toys.

LCDR Joe Baggett, USN:

Efficiencies: Streamline (reduce) future acquisition programs/projects.
We must always have an eye towards the future to constantly evolve and develop our force of tomorrow. However, we must also recognize our fiscally constrained times. It is increasingly difficult to sustain today’s force while also building for tomorrow. Since it is getting tougher to do both, our priority must be sustaining and advancing today’s proven capabilities while selectively developing programs that offer the greatest impact for the future at the earliest window.

Results of informal poll in CIMSEC’s Internal Discussion Facebook Group

What Should Be Cut First?

F-35C: 4    50%
Government Civilians: 3  38%
DDG-1000: 3   38%
Superficial personnel programs: 2 20%
Number of SSBNs: 2  20%
Independence-class LCS: 1  13%
Ship underway time: 0  0%
Early airwing and ship retiremnt: 0 0%

Total # of voters: 8

What Should Be Cut Last?

Training: 5    45%
Maintenance: 4   36%
Logistics infrastructure: 3  27%
F-35B: 1     9%
Readiness: 1   9%
R&D: 0    0%
Procurement of precision-guided munitions:0 0%
Targeting intel for counter-drug ops: 0 0%
Tricare (healthcare) funding: 0 0%

Total # of voters: 11

An International Response to Maritime Insecurity in the Gulf of Guinea

A Movement for the Emapncipation of the Niger Delta (MEND) Fighter
A fighter from the Movement for the Emancipation of the Niger Delta (MEND).

The International Crisis Group (ICG) recently released a report* on maritime security challenges in the Gulf of Guinea.  As usual from ICG, the analysis is excellent and informative, with reasonable policy recommendations to address the problems associated with increasing security challenges afloat (piracy, oil theft, smuggling, illegal fishing) in the region.  Unfortunately, there is little chance that the proposed courses of action will be pursued or efforts by regional states or organizations will be up to addressing these challenges.

What ICG calls “piracy” (beyond the traditional legal scope)  is increasing…42 attacks, 168 hostages kidnapped, and 4 deaths between January and September of 2012.  What had been primarily a problem in Nigeria’s Niger Delta has expanded, with attacks or raids in neighboring Benin, Togo, Ghana, the Ivory Coast, Cameroon, and Equatorial Guinea since 2009.  In an accompanying Op-ed at Foreign Policy, ICG’s Thierry Vircoulon argues that maritime security in West Africa is important, both to the states in the region that want to benefit by tapping into their national resources, and the rest of the world that increasingly depends on oil from the region (40% of Europe’s oil is imported from the Gulf of Guinea, and 29% of the U.S.’s).

The ICG’s first recommendation is to improve the economy in the coastal regions of the Gulf, thereby diminishing the need for locals to pursue illicit activities afloat as a livelihood. Unfortunately, precedents for Nigerian economic policies in the Niger Delta do not make it seem likely that countries in the region will begin to “boost job creation along the coast, in particular by protecting artisanal fishing, stimulating the local fish-processing industry, providing professional training for vulnerable sectors of the population” any time soon.

The second set of recommendations entail improved maritime security forces for the region.  Once again, this is a laudable goal, but it’s unclear who would pay for expanded and better-trained navies and coast guards for at least half-a-dozen African states.  Even factoring in potential aid from the U.S., Europe, or China it’s not clear how a “donated” navy would be able to be enough of an effective deterrent against local pirates and criminals.

The third set of recommendations revolve around establishing bilateral and regional frameworks for combined afloat operations.  Whether in the context of ECCAS (Economic Community of Central African States) and ECOWAS (Economic Community of West African States), combined patrols between states such as Nigeria and neighbors such as Benin and Cameroon, or improved intelligence sharing relationships, these types of operations would be essential to stopping the current insecurity.

There are numerous challenges to implementing this sort of regional cooperation. however.  First, “maritime cooperation is still in its infancy and is hampered by political tensions and distrust of neighbouring states toward Nigeria.”  Nigeria and Benin have begun to cooperate and conduct combined patrols, with Operation Prosperity starting in 2011.  However, Benin has virtually no Navy, Coast Guard, or maritime security force.  According to Janes, Benin’s Navy consists of three patrol craft, but one vessel dates from the late 1980s and isn’t believed to be operational, and the current status of the other two donated by China in 2000 is unclear.  Thus Nigeria bears the brunt of responsibility for patrolling Benin’s waters, which is good in the sense that they now have the authority to pursue criminals operating there, but bad in the sense that they have in the past shown limited ability to control illicit actors in their own waters, let alone next door.

The shortcomings of these proposed solutions point to one of the biggest problems with addressing maritime security challenges in West Africa as “piracy,” in that much of this criminal activity isn’t piracy at all.  Much occurs within the various states’ territorial waters, while under the traditional definition per international law, piracy occurs in international waters.  In these instances, the problem is one of criminals based in one state traveling to the territorial waters of a neighboring country to commit crimes afloat.  The difficulty isn’t that these acts occur on the high seas where no one has jurisdiction, but rather, because they happen in someone else’s jurisdiction.  A partnership where Nigerian criminals on the water can be pursued by effective maritime security forces across borders is essential, but seems unlikely unless an international sense of urgency increases.

Lieutenant Commander Mark Munson is a Naval Intelligence officer currently serving on the OPNAV staff.  He has previously served at Naval Special Warfare Group FOUR, the Office of Naval Intelligence, and onboard USS Essex (LHD 2).  The views expressed are solely those of the author and do not reflect the official viewpoints or policies of the Department of Defense or the US Government.

*Although this link is a summary, the actual full report is in French, the promised English version has yet to be published

* UPDATE: ICG has posted the English translation of the full report.