Indian Navy and International Anti-Piracy Ops

Dilbu · Post by **Dilbu** » 25 Nov 2008 21:51

chetak wrote:Breaking news on TV just now.
The thais are claiming that the IN sank their trawler Ekawat Nawa 5 and not a pirate ship.
14 crew missing, one crew confirmed dead.
This trawler had apparently been taken over by the pirates, as per the owner's statement

Phuck. They are claiming it. Is there proof?

krishnan · Post by **krishnan** » 25 Nov 2008 21:55

BTW what were thai's doing all this time? Sleeping?

HariC · Post by **HariC** » 25 Nov 2008 22:26

Tabar should have stuck around to see if any survivors were there, but i guess its difficult to locate any floating survivors in the night.

vdutta · Post by **vdutta** » 25 Nov 2008 22:38

It is really unfortunate that it was actually a Thai ship and not the ship we thought.
IN did its job, and bad luck did its own. Pirates were able to confuse IN successfully , i give them that. but there is nothing else IN could have done to save the innocent lives. I wish IN knew about the innocent lives and sent in marcos to rescue them.
i can only blame pirates for this whole messup.
rip for the innocent

HariC · Post by **HariC** » 25 Nov 2008 22:49

It actually makes sense why the Pirates fired on the Indian ship. they would expect the navy to realise that there were hostages on the ship and withhold fire.

But the IN didnt know that and returned fire to sink them - leaving behind a bunch of surprised dead pirates.

. sad about the hostages though.

sohamn · Post by **sohamn** » 25 Nov 2008 22:53

i doubt tabar would have fired without any provocation, I am sure that the boat which Thai guys claim was theirs would have been captured by pirates and was being used as mother ships. Or may be Thailand was supplying weapons to the pirates otherwise it would have not exploded with a bang. Remember, IN fired rounds from 30mm guns, not the main gun. Sinking a medium trawler with 30 mm guns is not that easy. I am sure the ships had some explosives and hence it exploded and sunk.

KrishG · Post by **KrishG** » 25 Nov 2008 22:56

vdutta wrote:It is really unfortunate that it was actually a Thai ship and not the ship we thought.
IN did its job, and bad luck did its own. Pirates were able to confuse IN successfully , i give them that. but there is nothing else IN could have done to save the innocent lives. I wish IN knew about the innocent lives and sent in marcos to rescue them.
i can only blame pirates for this whole messup.
rip for the innocent

Sorry but there weren't any hostages on that boat!

Username changed to 'A krish'.
if you would like another one plz say so. remember it will have to be human-sounding.
regards,
Rahul.

pradeepe · Post by **pradeepe** » 25 Nov 2008 23:02

Its interesting that no S.O.S was sent out if the Thai vessel was being hijacked.

vdutta · Post by **vdutta** » 25 Nov 2008 23:55

Admiralkrish wrote:
vdutta wrote:It is really unfortunate that it was actually a Thai ship and not the ship we thought.
IN did its job, and bad luck did its own. Pirates were able to confuse IN successfully , i give them that. but there is nothing else IN could have done to save the innocent lives. I wish IN knew about the innocent lives and sent in marcos to rescue them.
i can only blame pirates for this whole messup.
rip for the innocent
Sorry but there weren't any hostages on that boat!

if thats true then why are they complaining? a ship with pirates on it with no civilians is a pirate ship. they dont expect pirates to buy their ship from legal market and use it for piracy right?
it becomes a legit target and IN did the right thing.

Angre · Post by **Angre** » 26 Nov 2008 00:02

Nice read:
NATO Treats Pirates with Kid Gloves: Indian Admiral.

Bade · Post by **Bade** » 26 Nov 2008 00:04

Maybe being at the receiving end of the fire, the pirates setup an explosion fearing capture and used that as decoy to escape in the speed boats.

Aditya_M · Post by **Aditya_M** » 26 Nov 2008 00:06

Call me cynical, but maybe the thai govt wants to draw away attention from, I don't know, some other serious issues? Nah, no govt would do something like that, would they?

Victor · Post by **Victor** » 26 Nov 2008 00:48

Singha wrote:could be diesel tank. hindi films blow up a drum or two of petrol to get the explosive effect.

Possible but the flame looks like it is coming out of the hold which would normally have fish in it. Stern trawlers deploy nets and pull in catch from the back. The engines and fuel are towards the front and away from the catch.

The boat's owner says one of the survivors floated for 6 days before being picked up and that is quite a feat in the shark-infested Gulf of Aden. More likely he was on the speed boat that got away and ran out of gas. You would think that pirates want to live and collect their ransom. If so, they could have simply announced themselves and Tabar would have backed off. Their aggressiveness was totally unwarranted.

Bade · Post by **Bade** » 26 Nov 2008 01:57

Thai company says INS Tabar sank its vessel

"We don't know in what context such claims were being made," he said, adding the ship that attacked the Tabar was laden with ammunition. He said that the ship, which was in pirate-infested waters, had threatened to blow itself up if the Tabar approached it and sought verification.

Navy sources, however, said it was likely that the vessel was commandeered by pirates and the owners were now making a claim so that they could get insurance money for the vessel.

Raja Bose · Post by **Raja Bose** » 26 Nov 2008 02:04

Victor wrote:You would think that pirates want to live and collect their ransom. If so, they could have simply announced themselves and Tabar would have backed off. Their aggressiveness was totally unwarranted.

It would be unwarranted if they had hostages. Right now its just the Thais claiming there were hostages and God knows they are another gubo nation with guboness very close to our dear neighbour. To reiterate something I posted on this thread a while back....the pirates are businessmen (khat effects notwithstanding) NOT jehadis with crazy ideologies...they are in this business for money. So if they had hostages (as opposed to Thai accomplices) they would have used that card instead of shooting at INS Tabar.

I am sure Tabar simply didnt turn around when the boat turned into a pyrotechnics display..they probably lingered for atleast sometime and would have spotted atleast one of the survivors yelling out.

More and more this smells like some psyops with Thais in the pay. I hope any nonsense of our bleeding heart desi or videshi media is met with stern responses from IN or GoI (for once they can support our tough-talking CNS

)

Raja Bose · Post by **Raja Bose** » 26 Nov 2008 02:09

Wicharn said his ship made a distress call on November 18 as it was chased by pirates in two speedboats, but the connection was lost midway. The owners, Sirichai Fisheries, had not heard from the crew since then.

Thai company says INS Tabar sank its vessel

So the ship made a distress call on Nov. 18. Since this Wicharn character knows about this that means some of part of the call got thru and the Thais have known about this since Nov.18. Yet they wait for a whole week before making these claims. This story keeps getting better and better.....

Kati · Post by **Kati** » 26 Nov 2008 02:18

^^^^
These latest claims are just to cast doubt on Indian navy's ability. call me a conspiracy theorist. But after that pirate ship incident, though the most of the world reacted very positively, some powerful parties kelp a deafening silence. May be this Thai claim is a belated handiwork of
those rich and powerful parties who don't want the Indian navy getting too ambitious. Surprising that it took the Thai claim to surface almost a week.

Sid · Post by **Sid** » 26 Nov 2008 02:23

Raja Bose wrote:
Wicharn said his ship made a distress call on November 18 as it was chased by pirates in two speedboats, but the connection was lost midway. The owners, Sirichai Fisheries, had not heard from the crew since then.
Thai company says INS Tabar sank its vessel

So the ship made a distress call on Nov. 18. Since this Wicharn character knows about this that means some of part of the call got thru and the Thais have known about this since Nov.18. Yet they wait for a whole week before making these claims. This story keeps getting better and better.....

Because that Cambodian chap was found one week later (or 6 days later) who was part of crew. Thai were reportedly waiting for ransom calls from pirates. It should be noted that after that Thai ship was reported hijacked, Thai shipping company actually supported IN action (some Chaang guy).

Its just a case of mistaken identity, and IN is not to be blamed or any other party. This is embarrassing but lets not make it a circus.

Had it been USN, they would have bombed whole Somalia along with that trawler, made a movie on it (Black Trawler Down) and no one would have said a thing.

harbans · Post by **harbans** » 26 Nov 2008 03:03

While there is a possibility that the IN was coerced into hostile action by terrorists on board a hijacked vessel, which tragically was not known to the IN, this dilemna can be easily resolved. There are 2 types of distress signals mandatory on ships. SSAS and an Inmarsat C (min). DIfferent functions. SSAS is a Ship Security Alert System mandatory for all ships plying most countries..this is activated in case of piracy. If this was activated i wonder why the Thai kept quiet all this while. If the ship was destroyed the SSAS would have transmitted and been quiet Nov 18th itself! There are certain aspects of this system which are confidential and not open source, but are well known to key people in the industry who manage large fleets. If it was not the SSAS activated, then there are doubts if they activated the GMDSS Inmarsat C based systems, because the alert circumstances/ nature for that is different from activating the SSAS. Even assuming they have activated the GMDSS Inm Sat C signals in panic, why the delay? Early 90's thai piracy was clamped down. Is it possible that some Thai groups are now in piracy in these waters? This is going to raise a few and more questions. Fishing equipment coming to Thailand from where? Half way round the world. The entire China Seas are being fished to death on equipment present in Thailand itself. Too many loopholes in this to be clarified. In any case it will be really sad if innocents have been done in here.

Victor · Post by **Victor** » 26 Nov 2008 03:10

The Cambodian would have lasted 6 days only if he had the presence of mind to jump into the sea with at least 5 liters of drinking water. Without that, he would be dead in 3 days; sooner if he drank sea water. Too many loopholes indeed.

vivek_ahuja · Post by **vivek_ahuja** » 26 Nov 2008 05:32

Indian Navy questioned on Somali Ship sinking

New Delhi: The sinking by the Indian Navy of a Somali pirate "mother ship" in the international waters off the Gulf of Aden took a curious turn on Tuesday with a Thai company claiming the vessel that went down was a trawler it owned.

The Indian Navy, however, stuck to its guns, saying that its stealth frigate INS Tabar patrolling the region sunk the vessel in retaliatory fire after it was first fired upon November 18.

The huge fireball that erupted from the vessel after INS Tabar hit it action clearly proved that a large amount of ammunition was on board, Indian Navy spokesman Commander Nirad Sinha maintained.

Wicharn Sirichaiekawat, the owner of the Ekawat Nava 5, however, had a different story to tell.

He told an Indian TV news channel that the vessel was bound from Oman to Yemen to deliver fishing equipment when it was boarded by pirates near the Somali coast.

According to Wicharn, the pirates were taking control of the ship when the INS Tabar arrived on the scene and engaged in combat after being fired upon.

He claimed that 14 sailors were still missing and one crew member was killed in the INS Tabar assault.

Wicharn said he heard about the incident from a Cambodian crew member who survived and drifted in the ocean for six days before being rescued by a passing vessel and was now recuperating in a hospital in Yemen.

Commander Sinha would have none of this.

"The Indian Navy's stand is very clear. We were first fired upon and then we fired back in self-defence. The vessel was laden with a large quantity of ammunition as shown by the pictures (of the incident)," Sinha told IANS.

"Gun-totting pirates threatened to blow us up in international waters. So, this is an involvement in an act of piracy and we acted in self-defence," he added.

The Indian Navy earned tremendous accolades after the incident. It also said it had received informal clearance from the government to conduct "hot pursuit" raids against Somali pirates if the situation warranted.

The navy said it would beef up its presence in the region by despatching a guided missile destroyer and was even contemplating aerial reconnaissance flights in the area.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 26 Nov 2008 05:47

all pirate motherships were hijacked at some point or the other, it's not like pirates place orders at swan hunter for a 'Model 1.0.2 Pirate Mothership'.

meaning this was at the time a pirate ship, whatever it may have been in its earlier avatar is irrelevant.

about a thai ship in those waters; read somewhere that the chinese and some SE asian nations(not sure if thai was mentioned) have plundered those waters for fish with advanced fishing trawlers pushing the somali fishermen to the brink of disaster.
apparently this is the reason why piracy started in the first place.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 26 Nov 2008 05:54

Victor wrote: Possible but the flame looks like it is coming out of the hold which would normally have fish in it. Stern trawlers deploy nets and pull in catch from the back. The engines and fuel are towards the front and away from the catch.

Well the trawler had fishing equipment in it. Don't you know anything about fishing? You need RDX, Dynamite etc - to blow the fish out of water.

vivek_ahuja · Post by **vivek_ahuja** » 26 Nov 2008 06:03

He said that the ship..., had threatened to blow itself up.

And the Captain of the Tabar said: "Allow me..."

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 26 Nov 2008 06:05

He told an Indian TV news channel that the vessel was bound from Oman to Yemen to deliver fishing equipment when it was boarded by pirates near the Somali coast.

According to Wicharn, the pirates were taking control of the ship when the INS Tabar arrived on the scene and engaged in combat after being fired upon.

Oman to Yemen, via Somalia?

andy B · Post by **andy B** » 26 Nov 2008 06:14

Thailand has got a fair few problems brewing in the coutry itself and there have been a series of massive protests over the past couple of months. I really doubt the Thai Govt will take a stand on this if any.

http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/11/25/asia/thai.php

The circumstances under which the hijacked trawler was engaged by the IN, there is hardly anything that can be done. The saddest part is the loss of the crew of the trawler.

I am more worried about goras talking this up negatively using the human rights, etc issue.

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 26 Nov 2008 06:23

"The sunken ship which the Indian navy claimed was a 'mother ship' of pirates was not the 'mother ship' at all," he said. "The pirates wanted to take our ship to Somalia."

A ship that is taken over by pirates, loaded with armaments and tows two pirate speedboats behind it is a mother ship.

Nayak · Post by **Nayak** » 26 Nov 2008 06:24

High time IN released a video via the MEA/MOD mooks to clear up this muddle. Those Thai-gooks are bull$hitting big time.

Raja Bose · Post by **Raja Bose** » 26 Nov 2008 06:27

Also surprising..how does this Thai guy suddenly have all this info and 'expertise' about what is a mother ship or not???!

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 26 Nov 2008 06:29

anand, there is no proof as of yet that there were any crew on-board at the time of the sinking.
all we have at the moment is a supposed statement from a supposed survivor who is now supposed to be in hospital. no other supporting sources whatsoever.

and even if we 'suppose' that this person is indeed a part of the original crew, it is unlikely that the pirates would have taken an aggressive stand against a warship when the readymade solution -- the hostages were available.

even if this ship is indeed the thai one chances are the original crew was removed at the time of the incident.

andy B · Post by **andy B** » 26 Nov 2008 06:38

^^^ Fair enough saar. I am happy as long as the IN sends a few more/all of the pirate kind buggers and their ships down to the bottom of the ocean.

Brando · Post by **Brando** » 26 Nov 2008 07:42

Shouldnt the ship have markings and registration numbers ? Even trawlers are registered. The Indian Navy should provide the name of the vessel it was fired upon from. Also more facts need to come out as to who this Cambodian guy is and how he survived such a huge explosion and 7 days afloat on the high seas. Also he needs to explain how he knows that the INS Tabar fired on his ship as he was not on deck. The Thai owner should furnish details that this was indeed the same vessel.

Another valid question is why was a trawler carrying fishing equipment for export ? And is this fishing equipment explosive ? As of now there are just words going on between the Indian Navy and this Thai guy. It makes the IN look reckless and amateur squabbling with some Thai ship owner. Instead of going on the defensive they should decide to investigate the incident to the fullest because if there were indeed innocent seamen who were killed, their families do deserve an answer. In any case this incident should not act as a deterrent against further such inpections on the high seas.

IMO the Indian Navy should have responded by saying that they would launch an inquiry into the incident and submit all their findings to all parties concerned and learn from the entire episode, however the should simultaneously reiterate that they would not slacken or shy away from confronting pirates. That IMO is a much more mature response.

Another point I want to add; from this entire episode, I think the IN should consider changing their tactics to engage and destroy the smaller boats first when they encounter such situations as doing so would limit the pirates from escaping quickly and would either force the pirates to stay on the slower moving ships or overcrowd the remaining boats and thereby risk drowning. Also they should not allow pirates to steer captured ships to their ports once the pirates take hostages. This can be acheived by crippling the propeller by entangling it with chains and nylon nets.

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 26 Nov 2008 08:17

harbans wrote:While there is a possibility that the IN was coerced into hostile action by terrorists on board a hijacked vessel, which tragically was not known to the IN, this dilemna can be easily resolved. There are 2 types of distress signals mandatory on ships. SSAS and an Inmarsat C (min). DIfferent functions. SSAS is a Ship Security Alert System mandatory for all ships plying most countries..this is activated in case of piracy. If this was activated i wonder why the Thai kept quiet all this while. If the ship was destroyed the SSAS would have transmitted and been quiet Nov 18th itself! There are certain aspects of this system which are confidential and not open source, but are well known to key people in the industry who manage large fleets. If it was not the SSAS activated, then there are doubts if they activated the GMDSS Inmarsat C based systems, because the alert circumstances/ nature for that is different from activating the SSAS. Even assuming they have activated the GMDSS Inm Sat C signals in panic, why the delay? Early 90's thai piracy was clamped down. Is it possible that some Thai groups are now in piracy in these waters? This is going to raise a few and more questions. Fishing equipment coming to Thailand from where? Half way round the world. The entire China Seas are being fished to death on equipment present in Thailand itself. Too many loopholes in this to be clarified. In any case it will be really sad if innocents have been done in here.

Harbans ji
Your point is well taken, however
The SSAS is not mandatory on fishing vessels
Also seriously doubt if they had the GMDSS

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 26 Nov 2008 08:18

Rahul M wrote:all pirate motherships were hijacked at some point or the other, it's not like pirates place orders at swan hunter for a 'Model 1.0.2 Pirate Mothership'.

meaning this was at the time a pirate ship, whatever it may have been in its earlier avatar is irrelevant.

about a thai ship in those waters; read somewhere that the chinese and some SE asian nations(not sure if thai was mentioned) have plundered those waters for fish with advanced fishing trawlers pushing the somali fishermen to the brink of disaster.
apparently this is the reason why piracy started in the first place.

This whole affair reeks on an insurance scam.

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 26 Nov 2008 08:24

Victor wrote:The Cambodian would have lasted 6 days only if he had the presence of mind to jump into the sea with at least 5 liters of drinking water. Without that, he would be dead in 3 days; sooner if he drank sea water. Too many loopholes indeed.

Difficult yes but shipwrecked sailors have survived much longer than six days at sea.
Do not discount rain or even condensation to provide some water, depending on what wreckage he may been clinging to.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 26 Nov 2008 08:26

certainly plausible.
such cases are not un-heard of.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 26 Nov 2008 08:30

its likely the hostages were transferred long ago to land camp and the
boat used purely as a mship.

the thai govt had retreated from central bangkok to suvarnabhoomi airport
as a temporary office. but protesters chased them there and beat pro-govt
elements with iron rods yesterday. all departing flights(100s) were cancelled. their tourism industry is suffering gravely. they have hands full and I doubt thai govt would risk a fight with a FTA partner over some minor insurance scam. so its a pvt initiative or maybe a PRC sponsored play down the left field.

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 26 Nov 2008 08:31

Rahul M wrote:anand, there is no proof as of yet that there were any crew on-board at the time of the sinking.
all we have at the moment is a supposed statement from a supposed survivor who is now supposed to be in hospital. no other supporting sources whatsoever.

and even if we 'suppose' that this person is indeed a part of the original crew, it is unlikely that the pirates would have taken an aggressive stand against a warship when the readymade solution -- the hostages were available.

even if this ship is indeed the thai one chances are the original crew was removed at the time of the incident.

The owner seems to be claiming that the hijack was actually in progress when the incident occurred.
Hence the insurance scam angle becomes important.

"Hijack in progress" seems to be the loophole that he is seeking to exploit.
This fine point may not be explicitly or adequately covered in law.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 26 Nov 2008 08:35

"Hijack in progress" seems to be the loophole that he is seeking to exploit.
This fine point may not be explicitly or adequately covered in law.

since piracy is not under the insurance cover right ?
but is accidental destruction by a naval ship (assuming something like this will be invoked) covered under maritime insurance agreements ?

or is it some other kind of clause ?

Ujjal · Post by **Ujjal** » 26 Nov 2008 08:50

CNN : Was attack on pirate 'mother ship' a mistake?