Zone defence vs. man-on-man defence

[TcDohl]

(Disclaimer: As much as I've tried to uncover facts on the subject, I am still relatively ignorant to the modern naval command and why they do what they do and merchant shipping, and am bringing this discussion up out of this ignorance--please don't bite my head off)

My understanding is that the operation off the Horn of Africa is conducted by zone defence, where each ship has its own zone of patrol. However, despite the naval buildup in the region, it still doesn't completely eliminate pirate attacks. Being sane criminals, they would readily run away or dump their weapons overboard as soon as a warship comes along. Now, my question is, why do they not have a man-on-man defence where one warship would escort many civilian ships in a "reverse convoy" where the merchant ships vastly outnumber the navy ships. The traffic through the area is huge, I know, so you take into account how many warships are in the area to account the ratio.

It's harder logistically, but it has the potential to totally stop 100% of the attacks as a warship will always be nearby the convoy.

I'd like to hear why it's not done this way.

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

Because Merchant ships have a time table generally and must deliever x cargo at x port by x date and cannot wait around in a holding area for x number of merchant vessels to form up for a convoy.

 

[RhumRunner]

IMO, Ex-Dragoon is partly right. Although the ships entering/exiting the Suez Canal do have to wait for the lane to open up, they could form up a convoy on the way out. But the bigger picture here is that, unlike the traditional convoys of WW2, none of the ships go to the same destination. Once they leave the Gulf of Arden, they fan out.

I guesstimate that to maximize the protected area based on available resources, the zone defence would be appropriate. Not always effective, but a presence can still be a good deterrent.

Of course, the man-on defence is the best but it is also the costliest. VDQ did this last year (I think WIN did too) where they escorted World Food Programme vessels to and fro to ensure their safe passage. With the amount of vessels in that area, this method is not fiscally feasible for any navy.

On a side note, the traditional convoy was always comprised of a large number of merchant vessels that vastly outnumbered the navy ships. There were convoys made up of 30+ merchant vessels with one or two navy ships as escorts. But that is another story.

 

[willellis]

I like what RumRunner is saying, and Ex-Dragoon is completely right. The shear finances of having a multi billion dollar a year company, pay out a few million once in a while to pirates, is overshadowed by the cost of delaying every shipment sent out. IMO, a convoy is without a doubt the most secure method of navigating the waters. When considering the enemies Current "fleet", there is no comparison, however, with freighters being as spread out as they currently are, it is certainly difficult to keep them all safe while employing the current methods of protection. I believe that a coastal blockade around the known pirate ports would help keep them at bay, but that is just me. If there were no consiquenses, air strike, but, I don't believe that is an option yet....