jump to navigation

Chris Mark Speaking at Combating Piracy Week in Hamburg February 2, 2012

Posted by Chris Mark in Industry News, InfoSec & Privacy, Piracy & Maritime Security, Risk & Risk Management.
Tags: , , , , , , , ,
add a comment

I will be speaking at the  Combating Piracy Week in Hamburg, Germany on the topic of CyberSecurity & CyberEspionage The topic will discuss the topics with a focus on who is trying to steal your data and why.  It  will also cover the technologies and tactics of how they can steal your corporate data and what the uses of such data.  You can get a preview of the topic by reading the Maritime Executive article in which I was interviewed.

If you have not attended one of the Hanson Wade Piracy events, it is worth attending.  Hanson Wade’ personnel do a great job of coordinating networking and the speakers are all very professional and very adept.  I have had opportunity to speak at nearly 100 events in the past 12 years or so and I would put the Hanson Wade events in the top 5 in terms of value for the money.  I highly recommend this event for security companies that want to meet decision makers and speak with the people who influence the industry from a security perspective.

Realities of Precision Marksmanship from a Ship… January 26, 2012

Posted by Chris Mark in Piracy & Maritime Security, weapons and tactics.
Tags: , , , ,
2 comments

This is an excerpt from the post Realpolitik, Piracy and Armchair Quaterbacks.  It is intended to supplement the previous post Snipers on Ships…

The article was referring to piracy within the Gulf of Aden and specifically off of the coast of Somalia.  In the article, the author writes:

“All we need to do (emphasis added) is declare that for ships on the high sea, a 300-yard radius around the vessels is a limited access zone. Anybody closing in farther without permission will be assumed to be hostile. First, warning shots will be fired across their bow; if this will not do, shoot to kill.

True, this means that merchant ships will need some armed marshals, as do many flights. However, given that the ships are tall and the pirates need to mount them from their small boats, a few armed guards can do the job.”

Here is where theory and practice diverge and armchair quarterbacking takes over.  It is easy to be an armchair quarterback (or in this case ship’s crew) when it is not your own very expensive ship on the line or your own life on the line when the RPGs start flying. I can say from personal experience that it is less fun  being shot at in real life than the movies may suggest.  Additionally, the article ignores the much larger socio-political aspects of piracy.

To understand the feasibilityof what the author suggested let’s dissect what he is saying a little more closely.  He states that a 300 yard radius should be imposed around the ships.

In Somalia pirates are attacking ships using small skiffs that often travel over 40 knots (~46 mph).  Their skiffs are small, lightweight and agile.  The pirates attack ships using multiple boats and primarily carrying RPG-7 rocket propelled grenades, PKM machine guns, and AK-47 assault rifles.  They have little fear and are very aggressive.  In short, these guys are armed to the teeth and very capable.

On a 30ft x 8ft target moving at 9 mph the US Army gives the RPG 7 a hit probability of 22% at 300 meters, 51% at 200 meters, and 96% at 100 meters.  If one considers that the bridge or rudder of ship is the target and doubles the size of the target listed in the Army study, it is fair to say the hit probability doubles, as well.  This means that at 300 meters, the pirates have a 50/50 chance of hitting the bridge or rudder and doing serious damage to the ship.   If a pirate gets within 200 meters of the ship, their chance of a hit increases statistically to 100%.  The answer, according to the author, is to “…fire warning shots across their bow; if this will not do, shoot to kill.”- If they get within 300 meters.   The author then goes on to say that: “a few armed guards can do the job.” 

As a former Marine sniper with combat experience,  I would consider myself competent with a number of different weapons systems.  I also have experience guarding ships in Somalia.  I can say with absolute confidence that firing: “…warning shots across their bow..” and then: “…shoot(ing) to kill…” at a moving target on the open ocean 300 meters away is a lot easier for action stars like Matt Damon or Sylvester Stallone in thier movies than it is for real people in real situations.  In fact, what the author is proposing is very difficult.  To demonstrate some of the challenges, let us take a quick look at what is involved.

Consider that you are on a ship which is travelling 10 knots (creating a wind that affects the shot that this article will not address).  Consider that you now also have to keep your sights on a very small skiff travelling at 50 knots at 300 meters all while the ship and the boats are bouncing on the ocean swells. Assuming the skiff is traveling parallel with your own boat its relative speed is 40 knots.   At 40 knots, the skiff is travelling at almost 67.5 feet per second or the length of a football field every 4.4 seconds.  This means that with a .300 Winchester  Magnum  round travelling 3050 feet per second, a shooter would need to lead the boat 24.25 feet on a stable platform to account for the speed of the boat and the .36 seconds it takes the bullet to traverse the 300 meters (accounting for decease in velocity for you math geniuses).  This basic calculation does not account for the vertical movement of the ship or boat or the relative movement between the ship and the boat nor does it account for any wind that may be present.  Assuming your target is a person and is 1.2 feet across it is in the ‘hit zone’ for only .013 of a second when travelling at 40 knots.  This means that your lead ‘cushion’ is only .9 feet or 10.8 inches.   In short, if you lead more 25.04 feet or less than 23.36 feet, you have missed your target completely.  If your lead is perfect and you have miscalculated the distance of your target by only 10 meters, you have also missed your target.

Suffice it to say that shooting at a small, high speed target while on a moving platform is more than difficult.  It is extremely difficult.   Couple this with the fact that the pirates are masquerading as fishermen and you have compounded the issue because nobody wants to make a mistake and hurt an innocent person.

Snipers on Ships….Good Idea…or Overkill? (Pun Intended) January 26, 2012

Posted by Chris Mark in Piracy & Maritime Security, weapons and tactics.
Tags: , , , , ,
add a comment

I was reading a website today of what appears to be a new entrant into the maritime security world.  It is clear that they are trying to differentiate their services by offering ‘Maritime Marksmanship’ services.  According to the website, their former Royal Marine Snipers can add protection to 900 meters by adding precision, long range fire.  As a former US Marine Sniper I am very familiar with, and have great respect for the Royal Marines’ sniper course and while we like to argue and debate with each other over whose course is superior, the truth is that the discussion is academic.  Whether you believe it is the USMC or our UK brethren, the reality is that they are both arguably the most rigorous sniper courses in the world. We will continue to argue 😉  So back to my post.

While I don’t disagree that having trained snipers onboard provides a level of precision shooting, the question that must be asked is “how much is good enough?”  The truth is that not a single armed vessel has been successfully hijacked to date.  Many of the vessels are armed with M4s (or varients), AK 47s, G3s, FALs etc.  Is there truly at need at this juncture for a trained sniper on board?  A more fundamental question, I think, is whether you increase liability by placing a sniper onboard.  If a pirate is approach a vessel at high speed and shooting then there is a threat.  Using the force continuum it is expected that first evasive maneuvers are taken, followed by warning shots etc.  If they approach close enough then, possibly, you need to take more direct action and fire at the assailants.  International law is still somewhat unclear as to when you can and cannot use deadly force on a suspected pirate.  I question what would happen to the shooter if he shot a pirate out of a boat at 900m.  It would be extremely difficult to justify such a shooting as ‘defensive’.  (I suspect such a shot would be nearly impossible for any trained shooter…see next post as to why).

I believe at this point that having trained Commandos, US Marines (with appropriate background), or other well trained military members provides sufficient protection against pirate attacks.  Any Commando, US Marine, Ranger etc. with an M4, or similar weapon system can engage a target to 300 meters with relative ease.   Extending this range to a theoretical 900 meters does not, in my mind, reduce risk but may actually increase the risk should a suspected pirate be engaged at that distance.

For companies considering maritime security, it is suggested that the following be considered before considering the more esoteric aspects of armed services.

1) Are the company’s leaders experienced in maritime security and have they established and documented operating procedures consistent with the rules of force and international law?  You do NOT want a bunch of gunslinging cowboys on your ships.  Consider BlackWater as an example of what happens when undisciplined people with weapons are unleashed.

2) Are the armed guards appropriately vetted and trained?  As much as I love my USMC, the fact remains that in the USMC, we have a number of Marines that are cooks, mechanics, etc.  In the UK, all Marines are Commando trained.  The point being that just because someone has a particular title, does not mean they are right for the job.  Ensure that the company is selective and vets their personnel.  Additionally, ask about following on training.  Are the guards taught the rules of force?

3) Are the guards provided with appropriate kit and weapons?  I have heard horror stories of guards being deployed with Moisan Nagant rifles, and other ‘pre WWII’ weaponry.  While the debate over whether .50 sniper rifles provide good fodder for arguments, at a minimum the guards need to be armed with effective, modern weapons in working order.  M4s, G3, FAL, M14s, AK 74, AK 47 are probably all sufficient to rappel an attack by Somali pirates.  I personally do NOT believe that a shotgun is sufficient.  A shotgun is great for close quarters fighting but does not have the range or accuracy to defend against an attacker with an RPG or AK 47.

4) Does the company’s principals have experience with maritime traditions, rules, and communications?  It is imperative that the guards understand how to work on ships and how to interact with the ship’s officers and crew.  Ultimately, it is the ships captain that has responsibility for the vessel and her crew.  The guards need to understand how to integrate into the ship’s plans to ensure effective protection of the vessel.

Experts in Every Room and One Dunce in a Corner January 25, 2012

Posted by Chris Mark in Piracy & Maritime Security.
Tags: , , , ,
add a comment

The influx of new companies within the maritime security industry has increased competition.  In response, some companies have given in to the temptation to embellish the experience or expertise of individuals or companies in an attempt to differentiate themselves from the crowd.  It is an unfortunate reality of business.  In an effort to help shipping companies evaluate the vendors selling “today’s solution to tomorrow’s problem”, I have put together a quick paper on ‘expertise’.  Below is an excerpt of the paper you can read here:

“Introduction

The current market for maritime security and anti-piracy has resulted in the creation of a cottage industry of self-proclaimed experts speaking on the subject of anti-piracy and selling maritime security and anti-piracy services.  A review of some of these “experts’” comments and the services being promoted suggests that the expertise espoused is a rarer trait than one would be led to believe.  This paper is intended to provide information to allow prospective clients to separate the experts from those that claim expertise to capitalize on the current market for maritime security services.   For brevity’s sake, this paper will use the generic term Maritime Security to refer to both anti-piracy and maritime security services.

 Author’s Note

While knowledgeable on the subject, I do not consider myself an expert in maritime security.  I am a payment security expert and probably have expertise in a number of other areas but have not achieved a level of experience or education that would allow me to call myself an expert by any means.

Expertise Defined

To understand how to identify those with actual expertise from those who simply call themselves experts it is important to have a definition of the term ‘expert’. Webster’s dictionary provides the following definition for the noun ‘expert’:

Noun:

“…one with the special skill or knowledge representing mastery of a particular subject”

 Within the context of maritime security, expert, as a noun would be applied as follows:

“Joe is an Expert in maritime security.” 

Making this statement implies that Joe possesses a special skill or knowledge representing mastery of a particular subject.  In this case, the subject is maritime security.  The focus of this statement should be the word “mastery”.  This suggests that Joe possesses an intimate knowledge rather than a passing familiarity with the topic.

Webster’s dictionary provides the following definition for the adjective ‘expert’:

Adjective:

“…having, involving, or displaying special skill or knowledge derived from training or experience”

Within the context of maritime security the term expert, as an adjective, would be applied as follows:

“Joe’s expertise in maritime security is derived from his formal training and experience.”  

Making this statement indicates that Joe has a special skill or knowledge derived from training or experience.  Within this context, the key is “training or experience”.  Without relevant or appropriate training or experience (or both, in most cases), it is difficult to see how a person could be defined as an ‘expert’.

Consider the example of a Doctor that has passed her medical boards.  While the doctor may be a general practitioner and not considered an expert in neurosurgery, she would arguably be considered an expert in medicine relative to those who have not attended similar training or passed the medical boards.  The doctor’s expertise is qualified by training (medical school) and experience (residency), as well as quantified by passing medical school boards.  If a person were to sit at home and read anatomy and medical books they could certainly attain some level of medical knowledge but it is extremely difficult to see how a person such as the one described would be considered an ‘expert’ in medicine.

While it is not suggested that becoming an expert within the maritime security industry is similar to that of becoming a neurosurgeon, the complexity of the industry and the maritime security challenges should not be underestimated since valuable resources and human lives are at stake.  The maritime security industry is complex and the ever-changing regulatory landscape coupled with the changes the pirates’ tactics increase the complexity.  In his popular book, Outliers, Malcolm McGladry references Neurologist Daniel Levetin who says:

“The emerging pictures from such studies is that ten thousand hours of practice is required to achieve the level of mastery associated with being a world-class expert-in anything.””

You can read the full paper here.

US Navy SEALs Rescue Hostages in Somalia January 25, 2012

Posted by Chris Mark in Industry News, Piracy & Maritime Security.
Tags: , , , ,
add a comment

Making the news once again are the SEALs which, according to reports, conducted a hostage rescue in Somalia yesterday.  The SEALs assaulted the compound where they took fire.  According to reports, 9 gunmen were killed.  The hostages, American Jessica Buchanan, and Poul Thisted of Denmark, were captured last October while working for a Danish refugee council’s de-mining unit.  According to President Obama: “The United States will not tolerate the abduction of our people, and will spare no effort to secure the safety of our citizens and to bring their captors to justice,” Obama said in a statement. “This is yet another message to the world that the United States of America will stand strongly against any threats to our people.”