Mr Darr speak with forked tongue, notice he said 'we pay taxes when we have to' ? the whole purpose of 'flagging out' is to avoid paying taxes, avoid employing national crews and for some running sub standard vessels. The costly defence provided to these, let's be straight, tax dodgers, should not be borne by tax paying citizens of a non associated country. As far as intelligence on shipping movements is concerned, with AIS and LRIT the whereabouts and movement of every vessel is normally readily available worldwide 24 hours a day, so don't worry Sal.
Tax dodgers they may be but this isn’t the only reason ships are “flagged out.” Crew wages and conditions are poorer and safety checks less stringent. This has affected the British merchant marine drastically. The whole flag of convenience thing was a post war American initiative (that greased a few palms in Africa) and in fact the registry for the Marshall Islands and Liberia is based in Virginia.
Agreed. It's quite analagous to US-based insurers shifting their reserves offshore to more lightly regulated havens like Bermuda ... ultimately at some cost to US taxpayers if/when the worst happens. Cheers.
@@annoyingbstard9407 Correct sir, you must see the irony in the current situation. Even worse is the fact that Governments used to inspect and monitor their own vessels, no vested interest. FOC's pass all of that to third parties, usually classification societies who have a monetary interest in those being inspected, it stinks to high heaven.
What taxes are you referring to? Corporate taxes are paid where the company and subsidiaries are located/incorporated, not where the assets (ships) are registered.
100%, it's important to remember that Sal isn't just any landlubber in a basement, he's a professor and former sailor. He knows the subject matter and is providing constructive information. You'd expect them to be listening to his advice and forwarding it on, not trying to keep him quiet!
@@Anolaana I genuinely don't understand tyranny whatsoever. We'd literally all lay down and act like sheep if we were just given the room to yell once in a while. UBI to have our basic needs met and a platform to scream at one another on and we'd be the easiest controlled species in existence, more so than a goldfish. Instead, tyrants choose censorship and violence. It genuinely does not make logical sense whatsoever.
This is the fundamental problem in our country. Illegal aliens have representatives. People who have never contributed to the tax roll have representatives. Defense contractors and tech and social media have purchased representatives..
Sal, We need you in front of the committee in Congress. Few know this industry as you do, and these people in Congress need a good educator to explain this to them. We need to build up our flagged ships, we need to fund our shipping properly, and we need to re-build our merchant mariners (& perhaps restrict registry flagging to US ships.) Thank you for your service here on TH-cam, and at the university where you teach.) We need more people learning this, and we need Congress to understand the industry of shipping. Sadly, they don't seem to know where to begin. I hope you'll consider writing a letter to each member of the committee, and I hope you'll consider taking a trip to DC to help them understand how to fix this. ❤
It has alarmed me ever since I became aware that our domestic port terminals were being run by foreign contractors, but I have never been so alarmed as I was when the shipping map was filtered to demonstrate just how atrophic is our merchant vessel fleet
Thank you ( SAL) for talking about the WHOLE 😊 picture on the Freedom of trade. The cost of Goods will go UP with these shipping going around the southern part of Africa. There is weather related issues that slow movement of cargo. Thank you again for explaining the total picture of High Seas trade.
People calling on you to be silent are the same "ignorance is bliss" crowd i.e. "if we don't report it, it's not happening". I really appreciate you keeping us informed, and helping elevate the discussion about shipping.
Sal, someone once "suggested" to me that the birthday of the US Navy was 10OCT1775. Right before doing a bunch of pushups to reinforce that "suggestion". Apparently, the finer details of 1797 and the connection to the Barbary Pirates, and the distinction of the Continental Navy was nuance that was not valued by the person I was "conversing" with.
The last American President Lines (APL) ships built in the USA were the C-9's (3 ships). Those Avondale built were sold to Matson in 1996. The last straight from the shipyard new US flag ships were the C-10 class (5 ships). Those were built in Germany in the late 80's and were the world's 1st post-Panamax ships. Every US flag APL ship after the C-10's are 2nd hand. The ships are fully depreciated under their original flag. Then they are further depreciated in the USA. American tax law treats the ships as a 25 year depreciation vs. 5-7 years for most countries.
As an Air Force veteran who spent lots of time in East Africa and Asia, not to mention family in Malaysia, my heart aches that we can't figure this issue out. Global trade is so vital to what we consider our right as consumers. All nations who are able should pitch in to protect shipping, and the US should lead. And, I get your point that we should look at new revenue streams for doing so. Cheers. We love your work on this.
I believe other nations are chipping in ways which aren’t as visible as what the US Navy is doing. NATO is interconnected. If I am in the backyard building a deck and my wife is in the house working on our finances everything is for the benefit of the family even if it seems she’s not helping me.
I got rather tickled and not surprised about those contacting you. You were always clear about your sources of information. I am so impressed regarding your delivery and even sharing your personal opinion and making sure you acknowledge that it is a personal opinion when it is so. I think youvAre one hell of a man, but then I am prejudice. ❤
Small update Sal, the Royal Navy T45 HMS Diamond has just docked in Gibraltar for resupply and reload, her position in the Red Sea has been taken up but the T23 HMS Richmond.
Should the US navy protect all commerce? The obvious answer is Yes. The subtle answer is "if it's to the USA's econimic and geopolitical benefeit"... In which case it's still yes. The real question is "Should other nations contribute more to the protection of international shipping?" In which case the answer is, still, yes.
Really grateful for your reporting in the current climate. Interesting take on China that I heard, that I don't think you've mentioned yet? China saying that US attacks on Yemen are extra judicial, not sustained by the law of the sea. Because if intervention here is justified and precedented, then a blockade of Taiwan could equally invoke retaliation in defence of trade. So to cover themselves in the future, China has to say that the Bab el Mandeb "ain't no thing". Likewise, mirrored, to establish precedent for responding to a possible future Taiwan blockade, US has to throw quite a lot at the current crisis to set the bar for future (potential) interventions around Taiwan. Re geopolitics and posturing, the US over involvement, and the Chinese under involvement, both make a lot of sense from this framing. So I thought that was interesting. Thanks again, love the labour you put into this news digest, I'm very grateful.
Except the Houthi directly fired upon a USN warship, if I remember correctly. That's a clear act of war. As von Clauswitz said, "war is politics by other means", and politics is non-judicial by definition.
@@jakeaurod Yes, China is obviously wrong, but I found it interesting that to some extent both US and China will be thinking about Taiwan here in everything they do. That hadn't occurred to me before.
Another great video, Sal!! Here’s my question: if a cargo ship doesn’t go through the Suez Canal, that saves a $500,000 canal fee; not going through the Red Sea and the Gulf of Aiden saves $500,000-$1 million in war risk insurance surcharge, wouldn’t those savings more than offset the additional cost of fuel to go round the southern tip of Africa? The only trade-off I see is the additional time for the diversion compared to going through the Suez Canal. what’s your take on that?
He’s talked about that. The delays have a financial cost. The delays are about more than the additional shipping times for cargo. There are also delays in positioning ships to pick up cargos (not to mention getting containers to the right places.
That's a time-rate trade-off, not just a time trade-off. If a ship going through the Suez takes 30 days transporting cargo from China to Europe, but takes 45 days going around Africa, the volume of cargo you can move per year is reduced to 2/3. e.g. If you had a fleet of 40 ships going through the Suez, if you now have to go around Africa you'll need 60 ships to maintain the same volume of cargo moved per year. So your losses are not just the lowered rate at which you're generating income (due to payment being amortized over 45 days of ship and crew operation costs, instead of 30 days). There's also the construction/acquisition cost of the 20 extra ships and crew you'll need if you want to maintain the same amount of cargo moved per year.
@@skutchBlobaum See solandri69’s response. Also: Demand fluctuates, and it’s costly to maintain an excess inventory of ships. You can say it’s profit motivated, but you could also say it’s loss-aversion motivated. But you don’t want too few, because when there is a spike in demand, there is a long lead time in acquiring new ships. Not enough ships and you’re losing profits. Too many ships, you’re losing profits. The correct number of ships is not constant.
I enjoy your videos, love your shirts, where do you shop? FWIW I was a Radio Officer on a coastal freighter back in the 1980s. Your information is spot on. It would take a layman like me days to find the information you deliver in half an hour, thanks!
Thanks, really informative. If public funding is key, you need a return to Appropriatons bills and Authorization and Appropriations maritime subcommittees. All the best
You need to be in that congressional hearing. I've no idea how to make that happen but this video alone presented to congress would change minds and laws!
Sal, you mentioned this a few weeks ago that the US (and RN, etc) navies might well end up ensuring the freedom of navigation for Russia, Iran and China while others sail the long way round. So grateful to you to present and critique the US Congress elements too, as this is harder to see the wider picture elsewhere. Yes, lots of fluffy and flummery on the US Merchant Marine and US shipbuilding, and I don't wish to be disrespectful. While it’s great to think that this is being scrutinised and examined, there’s a lot of small-minded and partisan journalism over this that you present very well and for a grateful international audience. The barbed comments possibly directed at you show the poor understanding of the wider situation, I think. Great work and very relevant and timely from you. Thanks!!
The US should set up a protection scheme. US flagged ships are first in line in that scheme. Anyone else who wants USN protection plays by USN rules, else they're on their own. Ships can elect to reflag but according to our rules.
Two topics I love rolled into one book! Rough Waters, Thanks for the recommendation Sal. That will most likely become a book I take to and read while fishing in AK this next summer. Thanks again Sal!!!
I am not a Sea Lawyer - ROTFL - and waded(half-asleep?) through Navy Law Classes decades ago; but am an actual US Navy Earnest Will Veteran here. IIRC, Answer: Generally Speaking, No - unless the threat(s) affect our (Flagged and Hegemonic) Seaborne Commerce or we're responding to Calls for Help. Threats affecting General Traffic - per Somali Piracy - would be dealt with by willing and able Actors. There are Limits, however. E.g., Maersk MVs flagged by Stars&Stripes should be protected when requested and nearby, Murican owned but Foreign Flagged Maersk MVs most likely might, and All Other Maersk MVs depend on A) Being in a Convoy protected by US Naval Ships; B) Under Regional Protection Operated by the US Navy; C) Part of a Protectorate Operation Called from a NATO Article 5 Assembly; D) Under the protection of an US Naval Ship responding to and engaging a Maersk MV issuing a Distress Call. Outside of the aforementioned, IIRC, Maersk MVs should fall under a mixture of Flagged/Ownership/Danish Responsibilities. BTW, Nice Proceedings Article!
Considering that the world is already attempting to move away from the USD as a reserve currency, it seems reasonable to question whether the US should be protecting the sea lanes.
Yes, especially with the dollar facing other challenges simultaneously (including the Saudi’s announcing that they will sell oil for other currencies). We’ll be screwed if the dollar is replaced, especially with 34 trillion in debt. The Red Sea situation is just another chip in the wall…
That, like usual, was a good overall take on the situation. Thanks. Something to think about. The Houthi terrorists are not recognized has a state government to make war on, so, the president can use the excuse of fighting a terror organization. I do not know what would make someone think America can protect all shipping. Maybe if they compensate us for the time and systems, we deploy in it. We should prioritize our interest over other countries. That would be our ships and our trading partners. All other need to either step up with their own or pay for it.
Uptick in shipping cost is less about inflation but does provide increased cost for external production vs domestic. Higher shipping cost makes demand for domestic.
I passed the red sea when the Houthi's just started shooting. and I must say I was very very glad that the US navy was there. A navy that doesn't have to ask themselve "do we have the funds to shoot this million dollar rocket?" I sail with an European company., which since has avoided those waters since our navy supports the US navy in that area.
I'll say it again, it's not warships or LCSs we need, it's barges. remote controlled defense platforms with Goalkeepers or Aegis systems floating near the most dangerous parts of the Red Sea and surrounding waters. Cheap to build, easy to position, and easy to customize the arrangement to suit the risk.
As an old Boatswains Mate I can say YES , most definitely because we arent doing it alone . There are way more good guys than bad guys out on the Seas so we can keep them at bay . The same way that the atmosphere can't stop all the Meteors from coming through, it sure stops a lot of them . Same as our Navies ,
And as a United States Merchant Mariner, I say absolutely NOT. The US Navy is paid for by US Citizens to protect US Flag merchant vessels that employ US citizen crews. That is your Primary Job. If you wish to protect Liberian flagged vessels, then go enlist in the Liberian Navy. Caveat: if we are protected by our aliies’ navies, then our Navy should protect THEIR ships also. The FOC ships should get…nothing from us.
The UK government from the 1980s always said the Royal Navy was there to protect the shipping lanes but never said they would limit that protection and just have a look at how many ships are now UK flagged especially since 1980s vs today
All consumers are paying for extra cost of sailing longer routes. Corporations pass on all expenses in there business to there customers. Getting the Houthis to stop attacking shipping will lower expenses. So the goods the US buys from Europe will maybe cost less. Tesla had to stop building cars in Germany, American stock holders of Tesla may lose wealth because of ships sailing long routes. There are economic interests in the US that pay taxes that would like the Houthis to stop. They have higher costs and would like them reduced. Would like to get some value for there tax dollars.
The discussion is certainly necessary, but if the US Navy withdraws from Bab el-Mandeb and the Red Sea simply because US flagged ships are diverting away, then the Houthi have won, and the seaborne commerce that the West (not just the US) relies on is disrupted long term. Plus, the Houthi will have demonstrated for others how the West (the US in particular) can be defeated in short order by such asymmetric conflict. Is the West (ie the US) really so weak and decadent? Is Putin correct after all in his disparaging views of us?
"Don't step over a dollar to pick up a dime." I believe Tiger Team lawyers have prioritized highly financialized/financed Foreign Military Sales, over maintaining/repairing our Nation's infrastructure, which is more than just bridges and roads.
What about debt financing? I'm sure plenty of people play up all the linkages between industries and how money is fungible so that the net benefit of shipping created revenue through other means that can be seen as paying for protection. I know some people want to see a clearer _quid pro quo_ when it comes to foreign aid or similar military activity, but globalization is a system and like a system there are both knock-on effects through linkages as well as free-riders and it can be difficult for a non-expert to know the difference. That being said, maybe the US should just refuse to protect them and let them find their own way. Maybe the other navies, like China, will step up. Or maybe the US should also make it clear that not only does the USN protect shipping, it can also sink shipping if a war breaks out... and if they can read the tea leaves, maybe they should switch to coffee.
That’s not the mission, the mission is to keep the sea lanes open, it’s utterly impossible to protect All commerce, however keeping sea lanes open is possible and necessary.
No problem has ever been solved by limiting discussion. When you bought up MSC shipping I had to look it up. MSC Cruises is a wholly owned subsidiary of theirs. Not that anyone is taking cruises through the Red Sea right now.
It's silly we mention the taxes and navy together. The USD is the reserve currency, so it's essential to be the sea leader, or we would lose that status. Secondly, the USA is broke, and they inflate the currency to even have a budget. Therefore, considering these points, the global community trading in USD is taxed for the US military. Shipping maintains the usd high volume trade, and the usd high volume trade is the reason for a US military budget.
Thank you ( Sir) for talking about this 😊 If only people would study HISTORY on shipping and FREE trade on the international waters. There was a TIME in history before are great Nation was formed. The French and Spain were Fighting sailing ships trying to move supplies of goods between ports. The US formed a NAVY of sailing ships to protect the free trade of just material going between ports. These were NOT terrorist They were Countrys. The US Navy was started to protect shipping. The attack on international shipping is NOT new. It has been happening before the US was formed. The great volunteer ( Privateer) Went and protected shipping because they got rewards if the great three masters or bigger got there loads to safe harbor to unload. The US Navy teaches this in the officers Academy. Please people look at History of shipping before passing Judgement on modern shipping
I’ve seen nothing you’ve provided that would aid the terrorists. The info you’ve provided is only that which the terrorists already know. This channel can help US citizens provide their politicians with informed requests.
Canada here: to answer your question on protecting ALL shipping... No It costs entirely too much to protect a ship flagged in the Cayman Islands, staffed by the Philippines and Vietnam, owned by a shell company in Hong Kong and carries cargo from South Africa, United Kingdom, America, and Mexico. I know this hurts to comprehend...but even the United States Military Complex can't just swallow the cost of lobbing SM-2's at every drone or projectiles headed towards evey ship. All that said, we know, the US Navy will do...what the US Navy does and do what needs to be done... Another great update! Cheers!
Im a huge macro economics and monetary plumbing nerd. I have found that virtually nothing is funded by tax dollars, that would be extremely limiting in terms of spending. Rather, most everything is funded through credit creation or debt issuance. Hence we have a debt based currency system which isnt even fractional reserve as much as lending is mostly limited to counterparty risk. Its really a house of cards built on smoke and mirrors. Hard assets that cannot be created at impulse are the way to go IMO.
Especially if the likes of the Houis, are going to be supplied with both Unmanned Underwater Unmanned medium (500 kilometres plus) range Vehicles (UUV’s) or Autonomous Underwater Vehicles (AUV’s), or Underwater Remote-operated Attack Drones (URAD’s), each loaded with upto a 500 Kgs of High Explosives. Or carrying out attacks with Semi-submergible Surface Unmanned long (upto 1,000 kilometres) range Vehicles (SSUV’s) and Semi-submergible Surface Autonomous extended range (upto 2,000 kilometres plus) Vehicles (SSAV’s), again loaded with 1,000 to 2,000 Kgs of High Explosives. Or lastly carrying out marine attacks on international commercial shipping and warships, With Unmanned Fast Surface Autonomous attack medium to long (upto 3,000 Kms) range Craft’s (UFSAC’s), which can be armed with Surface to Surface or Anti-Ship short (10 to 30 KMS) range fire-and-forget Missiles, or Lightweight Anti-submarine / Surface Warship homing Torpedoes. Even short Surface to Air short (5 to 10 KMS) range fire-and-forget Missiles, or small lightweight anti-ship mines loaded with 100 to 200 KGS of High Explosives too.
As well these “UFSAC’s” armed with the likes of a Rapid Firing Dual-Purpose (Anti-Air/Anti-Surface) 20mm to 57mm Cannons, or multiple Remote-operated Weapon Station (RWS), each armed in turn with Medium to Heavy 7.62mm to 12.7mm Machine-Gun’s or 40mm Automatic Grenade Machine-Gun’s. Or just a couple of single-shot Ant-Tank Rocket Launcher, which could do a lot of damage to a civilian merchantman or cruise ship and/or private yacht or just a fishing trawler too. Think of it a line of international, British, French, American, Danish, German, Japanese, South Korean, Greek, Saudi Arabian and Indian plus Brazilian oil and LPG Tankers, as well as Container Ships and Bulk Carriers even a Cruise Liners too. All lining up and starting to sail through the Straits of Bad el Mandeb, when a swarm of Houtis UAV attack Drones come out of the Blue Sky from the Yemenis coast, but they are not alone there is a swarm of “UUV’s” and “AUV’s” plus “URAD’s” too. Let alone of a swarm of “SSUV’s” and “SSAV’s” coming at these international commercial shipping vessels from all directions at once, with a couple of Unmanned Fast Surface Autonomous attack Craft’s (UFSAC’s), both in command of these combined air and sea drones swarm attacks. The Unmanned Fast Surface Autonomous attack Craft’s (UFSAC’s), is also laying in wait to ambush any Allied Warship who comes to the assistance of these International Commercial Ships under attack. Whether that maybe coming from a nearby French Corvette, or from a responding Royal Navy Frigate, or from patrolling US Navy Destroyer and try and sink them too. Or even from these warship’s their own Anti-Submarine / Anti-Surface Vessel Warfare Helicopters responding first, or may from a US Navy Aircraft Carrier in the Gulf of Aden launching FA-18’s or F-35 Fighters in response too. With the Houtis operated Unmanned Fast Surface Autonomous attack Craft’s (UFSAC’s), just waiting and ready to shoot down these US helicopters and fighters when they come in range too. The point the Russians, Chinese, let alone North Koreans and the Iranians, are developing high tech Unmanned Fast Surface Autonomous attack very long range Craft’s (UFSAC’s), Unmanned Underwater Unmanned medium range Vehicles (UUV’s) or Autonomous Underwater medium to extended range Vehicles (AUV’s). Or Underwater Remote-operated Attack medium to long range Drones (URAD’s), or Semi-submergible Surface Unmanned long range Vehicles (SSUV’s) and Semi-submergible Surface Autonomous extended range Vehicles (SSAV’s) too. Any of these get into the hands of any International Islamic Terrorist Groups, located and operate around the world, then International Shipping Trade Routes, especial Maritime Choke Point are in big trouble or in real harm’s way of being attacked by Air and Sea or Underwater Drones in the future and at any time too?
Yeah... Our mechanisms can be turned against us.( Y'know, like, our immune system, family, markets...) Especially, at choke-points. The weapons you reported on and the people who would turn them on others is a real drag. But, for most; no different from natural disasters regarding our ability to keep them from happening. We can only prepare. Hug your people tight and often. No one can say when the "running around, screaming"-times will start.(((HUGS))) May all your fears never come to pass.🖖🙂
16:25 I think it’s also important to remember that we also have Egypt and the Suez Canal being affected. While we, the US, might not have many interests moving through the sea, Egypt needs movement for funding its government and keeping itself politically stable. Remember Egypt is one of our closest allies and burning them by just yoloing off and letting their revenue drop by even more would be devastating to our friendship and alliance with them. It’d show them we don’t actually care in trying to support their interests over ours which is a poison pill to US foreign policy, economic policy, and national security policy that’d be devastating. What happens to any of our incredibly close allies in the pacific if they see us not helping our friends and allies in the Middle East? Will we come to help them and be true to our promises? Or will we abandon them? Same concern with the lack of support for Ukraine right now. Taiwan probably getting very nervous if we’re really serious about helping them when we can’t even pass aid packages that help the country currently being invaded, Ukraine, and them, the country with very high risks of being invaded by China. Also 19:36 taxes aren’t everything. If it’s in the national interest to follow this policy should we not? Especially if it can actually limit how much we need to spend on defense spending by maintaining our current strategy that heavily works to divest capital to allies so we don’t need to spend as much on our defense budget? What happens if we lose those allies and suddenly have to deal with lowering our national security or massively increasing military spending because we couldn’t bother to help our friends, partners and allies?
Please keep speaking up about the problem with getting rid of the subsidies for building ships in the US, the consequences is obvious. What were they thinking?
What's REALLY Going With Shipping. On February 8, CEO of Danish shipping giant Maersk, Vincent Clerc, said that the company has suffered “serious attacks” in the Red Sea and that there is no clarity over the costs accumulated from said disruptions. He added that he expects a continued shipping diversion from the Red Sea “for a while”. Clerc also revealed that Maersk was informed by the U.S. Navy that the safe passage for all ships in the Red Sea can’t be guaranteed. Overall, the U.S.-led intervention against the Houthis appears to be a complete failure. The Houthis will not likely halt their attacks until the war on Gaza is over.
Here's the deal. What is the American interest? America is interested in importing products that it buys from overseas, and is interested in exports which it sells overseas. The vast majority of those goods are shipped by ships that are not owned by the US, not flagged by the US, or not crewed by the US. Do Americans have an interest in those ships as well as ships with American cargo? Of course, but really the cargo is far more important and valuable then the ship or its crew. I'm sorry to be so blunt. The rub comes in that we are not the only nation that has an interest in commerce. In fact, China, India, Russia, and the EU all have huge interests in this commerce. therefore all of us, and many others should be contributing to this effort. As you correctly point out the primary purpose of having a Navy is to secure our nation's commerce, NOT to fight wars.
I can't see it being cost effective with the USN's current mix of missiles, ships, and other weapons. Cheaper for US cargos to go around Africa or be carried by folks that Houthi aren't targeting. The more that the US is involved, the less likely that someone like Egypt can negotiate with the Houthi or intervene with ground forces.
The problem is that the problem is much greater than shipping costs, insurance, etc. As Sal pointed out several days back, those routes from Asia to Europe and particularly LNG routes from the ME to Europe take 2x, 3x, sometimes even 4x as long for goods to be delivered. If you don't have a lot of extra ships (some categories like LNG tankers are already very tight) you are now in a situation where the quantity of goods delivered is inversely proportional to delivery time. So, you could for example see LNG deliveries to Europe literally get cut in half, at a time when Europe is already desperate for these alternative supplies. The shortages created would refire inflation much worse than before, as Europe is already squeezing the turnip of conservation just about as hard as it can. It would be an economic disaster, and the fallout would affect the US badly too, especially as Biden sems uninterested in making up the shortfall of LNG. Don't believe me, run the ton-miles or cubic meter-mile calculations yourself. The results are likely to be catastrophic. They are also a huge boon to Russia, of course.
@@SpringIsBACK But the USN's current intervention isn't going to get those LNG tankers going back through the Red Sea. What do you propose instead: A land war in Yemen? Mining the Straits of Malacca to divert cargos to Europe? Europe, Egypt, and the Gulf States need to take care of the problem, not the USN.
Wish you'd mention that the founding of the standing U.S. Navy (in response to the Barbary pirates) was a result of the U.S. winning independence from Great Britain. That meant U.S. merchant vessels which used to be protected by the British Navy (since the U.S. was a British colony), suddenly lost their naval protection. And the Barbary states took advantage of that to capture and ransom U.S. merchant vessels and crew. So even the inception of the U.S. navy has its roots in the debate over what sort of commerce a navy should protect.
Unless it involved direct trade, I wouldn't expect the U.S. to protect Australian shipping without a fee. We can send our own Navy and work in unison with the U.S. just fine, but our government decided against it, possibly due to neighbouring regional tensions involving China. I'm all for us paying up to cover the American tax payer.
I think it is relevant that while the information you share on your channel might be readily available to anyone using the methods you laid out, you take that work out of the equation by providing the information yourself. Why should anyone take the time to figure out things like ships positions, routes, destinations, etc, when they can watch you provide it to them?
No, the US no longer has the frigates and the number of destroyers for the task. Destroyers' role now is almost entirely carrier defence. If a trade route serves Europe, Asia, and the Gulf States, and they don't want to secure it, they are choosing to let the chips fall where they may. Maybe they decided higher rates going around Africa are cheaper than sending their naval fleets. If you recall the Malacca Strait piracy of the late '90s and '00s, it was addressed by the littoral states aided by Japan. When motivated, people are able to resolve problems. Longstanding policies are not required to be eternal ones. Priorities change and funding is finite.
We have an interest in keeping those sea lanes open to free passage of all ships. An interconnected world economy means we are all effected by ships having to take costly and time consuming detours. I would say spend the money and levy an additional import tariff to cover the expense.
What the cargo is will determine the protection provided The flag and tax won't matter if the cargo is of interest to the USA needs ie support for the military machine Equipping, (feeding) all the wars, bases, armada in the Med
The question is not in should or not. The question is HOW TO DO THIS IN CHEAP WAY!!! Modern weapons of attackers are much cheaper than a defense systems. It makes protection too expensive, cheaper to leave the area. Each antimissile rocket cost ten times more, than a target; and in real life it needs 5-6 antimissile rockets to down the target. US budget cannot afford it any more. US economical power goes down. And without control over sea trade, it will goes down faster
Houthi problem will presist for quite some time. The United States responded to the deaths of three service members with the B-B1 Bomber flying out of Texas. No other country can do this and attack so many targets dispersed in numerous countries but even this will not solve problem. Air Force and Navy can control choke points and strategic areas but you need an army to take land to win the conflict. Will not happen here. U.S and Iran are talking through back channels to avoid futher expansion of conflict. Globalism ending and this presentation is an appropriate time to discuss what does the United States consider its self-interest in regards to shipping. Discussion is needed as Sal infers we need the cooperation of the executive and legislative branches to come up with a comprehensive plan while also working with unions and private corporations. This will also take time and planning. Good start here. Thanks Sal.
We need to somehow use this as a means of influencing ships back to our flag. I have no idea how. The other angle is solidifying the flags of convenience that are functionally American. Beyond that, of those flags, which are technically a flag that is also in free association with the U.S. Clarifying the degrees of "American" in these ways might start to clear up what is and is not our core interest.
Surely the US Navy's first obligation is to US flagged or related ships. But, in the general picture, having to go around South Africa presents many economic problems and risks to Western economies. So, as we (USA) can, I think we should be involved in eliminating interference to shipping in the Red Sea, Gulf of Aden, etc.
Getting called out like that is kinda an honor tbh. You do good work!
Mr Darr speak with forked tongue, notice he said 'we pay taxes when we have to' ? the whole purpose of 'flagging out' is to avoid paying taxes, avoid employing national crews and for some running sub standard vessels. The costly defence provided to these, let's be straight, tax dodgers, should not be borne by tax paying citizens of a non associated country. As far as intelligence on shipping movements is concerned, with AIS and LRIT the whereabouts and movement of every vessel is normally readily available worldwide 24 hours a day, so don't worry Sal.
Tax dodgers they may be but this isn’t the only reason ships are “flagged out.” Crew wages and conditions are poorer and safety checks less stringent. This has affected the British merchant marine drastically. The whole flag of convenience thing was a post war American initiative (that greased a few palms in Africa) and in fact the registry for the Marshall Islands and Liberia is based in Virginia.
Agreed. It's quite analagous to US-based insurers shifting their reserves offshore to more lightly regulated havens like Bermuda ... ultimately at some cost to US taxpayers if/when the worst happens. Cheers.
@@annoyingbstard9407 Correct sir, you must see the irony in the current situation. Even worse is the fact that Governments used to inspect and monitor their own vessels, no vested interest. FOC's pass all of that to third parties, usually classification societies who have a monetary interest in those being inspected, it stinks to high heaven.
A-f'ing-men. The true cost of business should be born by the profiteers and customers of their products, not the general public.
What taxes are you referring to? Corporate taxes are paid where the company and subsidiaries are located/incorporated, not where the assets (ships) are registered.
Don’t let them bully you Sal! You have brought a complex industry into my world, and I have shared your videos with others because it is approachable.
Please. Keep. Talking.
The world needs more voices.
Do you have asthma? Why do you type like the disabled kid in Malcolm in the Middle?
so true, which is why it makes me mad to see how this video got comparatively low views. people are ignorant until its too late...
100%, it's important to remember that Sal isn't just any landlubber in a basement, he's a professor and former sailor. He knows the subject matter and is providing constructive information. You'd expect them to be listening to his advice and forwarding it on, not trying to keep him quiet!
@@Anolaana I genuinely don't understand tyranny whatsoever.
We'd literally all lay down and act like sheep if we were just given the room to yell once in a while.
UBI to have our basic needs met and a platform to scream at one another on and we'd be the easiest controlled species in existence, more so than a goldfish.
Instead, tyrants choose censorship and violence. It genuinely does not make logical sense whatsoever.
@@Atmatan the elites got lost in their own heads. having too much power/drugs does that to you.
To turn a phrase, no representation without taxation.
the power of the US dollar as the world currency is based on the US assuring the flow of world trade , especially the US Navy control of the sea lanes
This is the fundamental problem in our country. Illegal aliens have representatives. People who have never contributed to the tax roll have representatives. Defense contractors and tech and social media have purchased representatives..
5:07 "Bab al-Mandab. Drink." luckily I had a jug of wine at the ready on the desk.
But he missed at least one drink!
scotch for me
Sal, We need you in front of the committee in Congress.
Few know this industry as you do, and these people in Congress need a good educator to explain this to them.
We need to build up our flagged ships, we need to fund our shipping properly, and we need to re-build our merchant mariners (& perhaps restrict registry flagging to US ships.)
Thank you for your service here on TH-cam, and at the university where you teach.)
We need more people learning this, and we need Congress to understand the industry of shipping. Sadly, they don't seem to know where to begin.
I hope you'll consider writing a letter to each member of the committee, and I hope you'll consider taking a trip to DC to help them understand how to fix this. ❤
Sal should be running the god damn Congress
Perhaps this video could be sent to every congressman office.
If it wasn't for u I would not have known that this stuff was happening out there u are better then the news
It has alarmed me ever since I became aware that our domestic port terminals were being run by foreign contractors, but I have never been so alarmed as I was when the shipping map was filtered to demonstrate just how atrophic is our merchant vessel fleet
The Houthi are done. The Iranian commanders have left Yemen, and Houthi fighters are fleeing to Somalia.
@@mandarinandthetenrings2201 but that will push Somali based piracy again…..
Thank you ( SAL) for talking about the WHOLE 😊 picture on the Freedom of trade. The cost of Goods will go UP with these shipping going around the southern part of Africa. There is weather related issues that slow movement of cargo. Thank you again for explaining the total picture of High Seas trade.
People calling on you to be silent are the same "ignorance is bliss" crowd i.e. "if we don't report it, it's not happening".
I really appreciate you keeping us informed, and helping elevate the discussion about shipping.
Never really interested in ships until I worked in an office with the father of Captain James Patrick Gigliotti (USS Truman), interesting times.
Sal, someone once "suggested" to me that the birthday of the US Navy was 10OCT1775. Right before doing a bunch of pushups to reinforce that "suggestion". Apparently, the finer details of 1797 and the connection to the Barbary Pirates, and the distinction of the Continental Navy was nuance that was not valued by the person I was "conversing" with.
Seems a pretty one-sided exchange. Cheers.
@@MartinCanada worst part is that I miss keyed the date in the post. 13OCT1775. I'll start pushing...
The last American President Lines (APL) ships built in the USA were the C-9's (3 ships). Those Avondale built were sold to Matson in 1996. The last straight from the shipyard new US flag ships were the C-10 class (5 ships). Those were built in Germany in the late 80's and were the world's 1st post-Panamax ships. Every US flag APL ship after the C-10's are 2nd hand. The ships are fully depreciated under their original flag. Then they are further depreciated in the USA. American tax law treats the ships as a 25 year depreciation vs. 5-7 years for most countries.
Transparency is all your trying to do,I appreciate the work you do sir 👍 thank you
No one explains this quagmire as clearly as you, Sal!
Keep informing us of the truth regarding shipping!
Will do
As an Air Force veteran who spent lots of time in East Africa and Asia, not to mention family in Malaysia, my heart aches that we can't figure this issue out. Global trade is so vital to what we consider our right as consumers. All nations who are able should pitch in to protect shipping, and the US should lead. And, I get your point that we should look at new revenue streams for doing so.
Cheers. We love your work on this.
I believe other nations are chipping in ways which aren’t as visible as what the US Navy is doing. NATO is interconnected. If I am in the backyard building a deck and my wife is in the house working on our finances everything is for the benefit of the family even if it seems she’s not helping me.
Great piece Al, very informative and thanks to you I feel a little smarter today, I am not a mariner but I really enjoy your work. Thank you
Hi Sal. Absolutely, as long as we can send them the bill.💵
Or fly the Flag and pay the Taxes.
I got rather tickled and not surprised about those contacting you. You were always clear about your sources of information. I am so impressed regarding your delivery and even sharing your personal opinion and making sure you acknowledge that it is a personal opinion when it is so. I think youvAre one hell of a man, but then I am prejudice. ❤
Thanks Patricia!
Small update Sal, the Royal Navy T45 HMS Diamond has just docked in Gibraltar for resupply and reload, her position in the Red Sea has been taken up but the T23 HMS Richmond.
Should the US navy protect all commerce?
The obvious answer is Yes.
The subtle answer is "if it's to the USA's econimic and geopolitical benefeit"... In which case it's still yes.
The real question is "Should other nations contribute more to the protection of international shipping?"
In which case the answer is, still, yes.
The answer is yes ... For a fee. "Nice boat. Would be such a shame if something were to happen to it."
Really grateful for your reporting in the current climate. Interesting take on China that I heard, that I don't think you've mentioned yet? China saying that US attacks on Yemen are extra judicial, not sustained by the law of the sea.
Because if intervention here is justified and precedented, then a blockade of Taiwan could equally invoke retaliation in defence of trade.
So to cover themselves in the future, China has to say that the Bab el Mandeb "ain't no thing".
Likewise, mirrored, to establish precedent for responding to a possible future Taiwan blockade, US has to throw quite a lot at the current crisis to set the bar for future (potential) interventions around Taiwan.
Re geopolitics and posturing, the US over involvement, and the Chinese under involvement, both make a lot of sense from this framing. So I thought that was interesting.
Thanks again, love the labour you put into this news digest, I'm very grateful.
Except the Houthi directly fired upon a USN warship, if I remember correctly. That's a clear act of war. As von Clauswitz said, "war is politics by other means", and politics is non-judicial by definition.
@@jakeaurod Yes, China is obviously wrong, but I found it interesting that to some extent both US and China will be thinking about Taiwan here in everything they do. That hadn't occurred to me before.
I have been waiting for you to discuss this, thank you!
Thank you Sal! Please keep up your informative news!
Hat's off again. Well said. Well done!
Another great video, Sal!! Here’s my question: if a cargo ship doesn’t go through the Suez Canal, that saves a $500,000 canal fee; not going through the Red Sea and the Gulf of Aiden saves $500,000-$1 million in war risk insurance surcharge, wouldn’t those savings more than offset the additional cost of fuel to go round the southern tip of Africa? The only trade-off I see is the additional time for the diversion compared to going through the Suez Canal. what’s your take on that?
He’s talked about that. The delays have a financial cost. The delays are about more than the additional shipping times for cargo. There are also delays in positioning ships to pick up cargos (not to mention getting containers to the right places.
So noted, it makes it obvious that I’m an outsider looking in.
@@MarcosElMalo2 So in reality it's a lack of redundancy that was more than likely sacrificed for profit ?
That's a time-rate trade-off, not just a time trade-off. If a ship going through the Suez takes 30 days transporting cargo from China to Europe, but takes 45 days going around Africa, the volume of cargo you can move per year is reduced to 2/3. e.g. If you had a fleet of 40 ships going through the Suez, if you now have to go around Africa you'll need 60 ships to maintain the same volume of cargo moved per year. So your losses are not just the lowered rate at which you're generating income (due to payment being amortized over 45 days of ship and crew operation costs, instead of 30 days). There's also the construction/acquisition cost of the 20 extra ships and crew you'll need if you want to maintain the same amount of cargo moved per year.
@@skutchBlobaum See solandri69’s response. Also: Demand fluctuates, and it’s costly to maintain an excess inventory of ships. You can say it’s profit motivated, but you could also say it’s loss-aversion motivated. But you don’t want too few, because when there is a spike in demand, there is a long lead time in acquiring new ships. Not enough ships and you’re losing profits. Too many ships, you’re losing profits. The correct number of ships is not constant.
Thanks Sal. Very interesting
Always informative!
Thank you Dr. Sal,
Your most information-dense content yet.
Good stuff.
Re "all over the place" CNBC headlines ... no kidding! ChatGPD at work?! Keep up the good work, Sal -- snazzy shirt! Cheers.
I enjoy your videos, love your shirts, where do you shop?
FWIW I was a Radio Officer on a coastal freighter back in the 1980s. Your information is spot on. It would take a layman like me days to find the information you deliver in half an hour, thanks!
Thanks, really informative. If public funding is key, you need a return to Appropriatons bills and Authorization and Appropriations maritime subcommittees. All the best
You need to be in that congressional hearing. I've no idea how to make that happen but this video alone presented to congress would change minds and laws!
Complex issue. US-flag vessels should be given clear priority. Activate NCAGS with secure comms.
Good episode Sal!
Sal, , keep doing what you do.
Sal, you mentioned this a few weeks ago that the US (and RN, etc) navies might well end up ensuring the freedom of navigation for Russia, Iran and China while others sail the long way round.
So grateful to you to present and critique the US Congress elements too, as this is harder to see the wider picture elsewhere.
Yes, lots of fluffy and flummery on the US Merchant Marine and US shipbuilding, and I don't wish to be disrespectful. While it’s great to think that this is being scrutinised and examined, there’s a lot of small-minded and partisan journalism over this that you present very well and for a grateful international audience. The barbed comments possibly directed at you show the poor understanding of the wider situation, I think.
Great work and very relevant and timely from you. Thanks!!
They've been freeloaders for quite awhile, yeah.
Investigative journalism at its best. Like Sysman Super Yachts and Kangaroo Court of Australia 👍
This was a good one! Thanks for bringing it to us.
The US should set up a protection scheme. US flagged ships are first in line in that scheme. Anyone else who wants USN protection plays by USN rules, else they're on their own. Ships can elect to reflag but according to our rules.
Thank you for all of the informative videos.
Two topics I love rolled into one book! Rough Waters, Thanks for the recommendation Sal. That will most likely become a book I take to and read while fishing in AK this next summer.
Thanks again Sal!!!
Thanks, Sal, for another great report.
--And also for three sips (or guzzles) of my favorite adult beverage. :)
We do milk at my house, but yes! Great way fo get the grandkids an education, while having a fun milk-drinking game!
I am not a Sea Lawyer - ROTFL - and waded(half-asleep?) through Navy Law Classes decades ago; but am an actual US Navy Earnest Will Veteran here.
IIRC,
Answer: Generally Speaking, No - unless the threat(s) affect our (Flagged and Hegemonic) Seaborne Commerce or we're responding to Calls for Help. Threats affecting General Traffic - per Somali Piracy - would be dealt with by willing and able Actors.
There are Limits, however. E.g., Maersk MVs flagged by Stars&Stripes should be protected when requested and nearby, Murican owned but Foreign Flagged Maersk MVs most likely might, and All Other Maersk MVs depend on A) Being in a Convoy protected by US Naval Ships; B) Under Regional Protection Operated by the US Navy; C) Part of a Protectorate Operation Called from a NATO Article 5 Assembly; D) Under the protection of an US Naval Ship responding to and engaging a Maersk MV issuing a Distress Call. Outside of the aforementioned, IIRC, Maersk MVs should fall under a mixture of Flagged/Ownership/Danish Responsibilities.
BTW,
Nice Proceedings Article!
Thank you for the book recommendations.
Seems like Bretton Woods should be part of the discussion. Navigable sealanes is part of the contract with the USD as global reserve currency.
Considering that the world is already attempting to move away from the USD as a reserve currency, it seems reasonable to question whether the US should be protecting the sea lanes.
Yes, especially with the dollar facing other challenges simultaneously (including the Saudi’s announcing that they will sell oil for other currencies). We’ll be screwed if the dollar is replaced, especially with 34 trillion in debt. The Red Sea situation is just another chip in the wall…
@@CedarHunt that will ensure the decline of the USD and US primacy.
@@samngood199 How so? We tie our support to flagging for US or allied ships. Nobody can do what we're doing, and it'll save costs.
@@CedarHunt no one has to worry about security that doesn't support Israeli policy. Now the world has been fractured and the USD is losing the action.
Thank You Sal 👏
That, like usual, was a good overall take on the situation. Thanks.
Something to think about. The Houthi terrorists are not recognized has a state government to make war on, so, the president can use the excuse of fighting a terror organization.
I do not know what would make someone think America can protect all shipping. Maybe if they compensate us for the time and systems, we deploy in it. We should prioritize our interest over other countries. That would be our ships and our trading partners. All other need to either step up with their own or pay for it.
Uptick in shipping cost is less about inflation but does provide increased cost for external production vs domestic. Higher shipping cost makes demand for domestic.
I passed the red sea when the Houthi's just started shooting. and I must say I was very very glad that the US navy was there. A navy that doesn't have to ask themselve "do we have the funds to shoot this million dollar rocket?" I sail with an European company., which since has avoided those waters since our navy supports the US navy in that area.
how t f does this have only 28k views? its two weeks and this is so damn inportant! what is wrong with people??? this really makes me mad.
I'll say it again, it's not warships or LCSs we need, it's barges. remote controlled defense platforms with Goalkeepers or Aegis systems floating near the most dangerous parts of the Red Sea and surrounding waters. Cheap to build, easy to position, and easy to customize the arrangement to suit the risk.
As an old Boatswains Mate I can say YES , most definitely because we arent doing it alone . There are way more good guys than bad guys out on the Seas so we can keep them at bay .
The same way that the atmosphere can't stop all the Meteors from coming through, it sure stops a lot of them . Same as our Navies ,
And as a United States Merchant Mariner, I say absolutely NOT. The US Navy is paid for by US Citizens to protect US Flag merchant vessels that employ US citizen crews.
That is your Primary Job.
If you wish to protect Liberian flagged vessels, then go enlist in the Liberian Navy.
Caveat: if we are protected by our aliies’ navies, then our Navy should protect THEIR ships also. The FOC ships should get…nothing from us.
Better to fight the buggers in the Gulf of Aden than closer to home.
The UK government from the 1980s always said the Royal Navy was there to protect the shipping lanes but never said they would limit that protection and just have a look at how many ships are now UK flagged especially since 1980s vs today
Excellent information
Thank Sir For Updated Blessing🇺🇸🇺🇸🙏🙏🖐🖐💙💙
some well placed very large yield fissionable devices will solve this issue quickly....
If he had mentioned you by name you'd have a million subscribers by now 😀
All consumers are paying for extra cost of sailing longer routes. Corporations pass on all expenses in there business to there customers. Getting the Houthis to stop attacking shipping will lower expenses. So the goods the US buys from Europe will maybe cost less.
Tesla had to stop building cars in Germany, American stock holders of Tesla may lose wealth because of ships sailing long routes.
There are economic interests in the US that pay taxes that would like the Houthis to stop. They have higher costs and would like them reduced. Would like to get some value for there tax dollars.
The discussion is certainly necessary, but if the US Navy withdraws from Bab el-Mandeb and the Red Sea simply because US flagged ships are diverting away, then the Houthi have won, and the seaborne commerce that the West (not just the US) relies on is disrupted long term. Plus, the Houthi will have demonstrated for others how the West (the US in particular) can be defeated in short order by such asymmetric conflict. Is the West (ie the US) really so weak and decadent? Is Putin correct after all in his disparaging views of us?
On the 9th minute: Since when does the US Reps concerned about US taxpayer's money is being used in defense and offense?
"Don't step over a dollar to pick up a dime." I believe Tiger Team lawyers have prioritized highly financialized/financed Foreign Military Sales, over maintaining/repairing our Nation's infrastructure, which is more than just bridges and roads.
What about debt financing? I'm sure plenty of people play up all the linkages between industries and how money is fungible so that the net benefit of shipping created revenue through other means that can be seen as paying for protection. I know some people want to see a clearer _quid pro quo_ when it comes to foreign aid or similar military activity, but globalization is a system and like a system there are both knock-on effects through linkages as well as free-riders and it can be difficult for a non-expert to know the difference.
That being said, maybe the US should just refuse to protect them and let them find their own way. Maybe the other navies, like China, will step up. Or maybe the US should also make it clear that not only does the USN protect shipping, it can also sink shipping if a war breaks out... and if they can read the tea leaves, maybe they should switch to coffee.
That’s not the mission, the mission is to keep the sea lanes open, it’s utterly impossible to protect All commerce, however keeping sea lanes open is possible and necessary.
Thank you for the great content
No problem has ever been solved by limiting discussion.
When you bought up MSC shipping I had to look it up. MSC Cruises is a wholly owned subsidiary of theirs. Not that anyone is taking cruises through the Red Sea right now.
Pronunciation again - Languedoc is not Long Duck", rather Lang-were -dock
Sal explained during a segment a few weeks ago that he is an equal opportunity mispronouncer! Cheers.
thank you! I hate sounding stupid.
It's silly we mention the taxes and navy together. The USD is the reserve currency, so it's essential to be the sea leader, or we would lose that status. Secondly, the USA is broke, and they inflate the currency to even have a budget. Therefore, considering these points, the global community trading in USD is taxed for the US military. Shipping maintains the usd high volume trade, and the usd high volume trade is the reason for a US military budget.
Thank you ( Sir) for talking about this 😊
If only people would study HISTORY on shipping and FREE trade on the international waters. There was a TIME in history before are great Nation was formed. The French and Spain were Fighting sailing ships trying to move supplies of goods between ports. The US formed a NAVY of sailing ships to protect the free trade of just material going between ports. These were NOT terrorist
They were Countrys. The US Navy was started to protect shipping. The attack on international shipping is NOT new. It has been happening before the US was formed. The great volunteer ( Privateer)
Went and protected shipping because they got rewards if the great three masters or bigger got there loads to safe harbor to unload. The US Navy teaches this in the officers Academy. Please people look at History of shipping before passing Judgement on modern shipping
You mentioned the Comms some time back...
Great Work as always.Love your channel. Today in the German Tv they said the EU send Navy Ships to the Red Sea. Have you heard about that ?
The EU have no ships. Member states have naval ships.
@@JanBruunAndersen Yes Mr Teacher
I’ve seen nothing you’ve provided that would aid the terrorists. The info you’ve provided is only that which the terrorists already know.
This channel can help US citizens provide their politicians with informed requests.
Canada here: to answer your question on protecting ALL shipping...
No
It costs entirely too much to protect a ship flagged in the Cayman Islands, staffed by the Philippines and Vietnam, owned by a shell company in Hong Kong and carries cargo from South Africa, United Kingdom, America, and Mexico.
I know this hurts to comprehend...but even the United States Military Complex can't just swallow the cost of lobbing SM-2's at every drone or projectiles headed towards evey ship.
All that said, we know, the US Navy will do...what the US Navy does and do what needs to be done...
Another great update!
Cheers!
SA-2 is a (very) old Russian missile…
@@grahamstrouse1165 so RIM, or SM-2's bloody acronyms. 😆 🤣
Im a huge macro economics and monetary plumbing nerd. I have found that virtually nothing is funded by tax dollars, that would be extremely limiting in terms of spending. Rather, most everything is funded through credit creation or debt issuance. Hence we have a debt based currency system which isnt even fractional reserve as much as lending is mostly limited to counterparty risk.
Its really a house of cards built on smoke and mirrors.
Hard assets that cannot be created at impulse are the way to go IMO.
Especially if the likes of the Houis, are going to be supplied with both Unmanned Underwater Unmanned medium (500 kilometres plus) range Vehicles (UUV’s) or Autonomous Underwater Vehicles (AUV’s), or Underwater Remote-operated Attack Drones (URAD’s), each loaded with upto a 500 Kgs of High Explosives.
Or carrying out attacks with Semi-submergible Surface Unmanned long (upto 1,000 kilometres) range Vehicles (SSUV’s) and Semi-submergible Surface Autonomous extended range (upto 2,000 kilometres plus) Vehicles (SSAV’s), again loaded with 1,000 to 2,000 Kgs of High Explosives.
Or lastly carrying out marine attacks on international commercial shipping and warships, With Unmanned Fast Surface Autonomous attack medium to long (upto 3,000 Kms) range Craft’s (UFSAC’s), which can be armed with Surface to Surface or Anti-Ship short (10 to 30 KMS) range fire-and-forget Missiles, or Lightweight Anti-submarine / Surface Warship homing Torpedoes.
Even short Surface to Air short (5 to 10 KMS) range fire-and-forget Missiles, or small lightweight anti-ship mines loaded with 100 to 200 KGS of High Explosives too.
As well these “UFSAC’s” armed with the likes of a Rapid Firing Dual-Purpose (Anti-Air/Anti-Surface) 20mm to 57mm Cannons, or multiple Remote-operated Weapon Station (RWS), each armed in turn with Medium to Heavy 7.62mm to 12.7mm Machine-Gun’s or 40mm Automatic Grenade Machine-Gun’s.
Or just a couple of single-shot Ant-Tank Rocket Launcher, which could do a lot of damage to a civilian merchantman or cruise ship and/or private yacht or just a fishing trawler too.
Think of it a line of international, British, French, American, Danish, German, Japanese, South Korean, Greek, Saudi Arabian and Indian plus Brazilian oil and LPG Tankers, as well as Container Ships and Bulk Carriers even a Cruise Liners too.
All lining up and starting to sail through the Straits of Bad el Mandeb, when a swarm of Houtis UAV attack Drones come out of the Blue Sky from the Yemenis coast, but they are not alone there is a swarm of “UUV’s” and “AUV’s” plus “URAD’s” too.
Let alone of a swarm of “SSUV’s” and “SSAV’s” coming at these international commercial shipping vessels from all directions at once, with a couple of Unmanned Fast Surface Autonomous attack Craft’s (UFSAC’s), both in command of these combined air and sea drones swarm attacks.
The Unmanned Fast Surface Autonomous attack Craft’s (UFSAC’s), is also laying in wait to ambush any Allied Warship who comes to the assistance of these International Commercial Ships under attack.
Whether that maybe coming from a nearby French Corvette, or from a responding Royal Navy Frigate, or from patrolling US Navy Destroyer and try and sink them too.
Or even from these warship’s their own Anti-Submarine / Anti-Surface Vessel Warfare Helicopters responding first, or may from a US Navy Aircraft Carrier in the Gulf of Aden launching FA-18’s or F-35 Fighters in response too.
With the Houtis operated Unmanned Fast Surface Autonomous attack Craft’s (UFSAC’s), just waiting and ready to shoot down these US helicopters and fighters when they come in range too.
The point the Russians, Chinese, let alone North Koreans and the Iranians, are developing high tech Unmanned Fast Surface Autonomous attack very long range Craft’s (UFSAC’s), Unmanned Underwater Unmanned medium range Vehicles (UUV’s) or Autonomous Underwater medium to extended range Vehicles (AUV’s).
Or Underwater Remote-operated Attack medium to long range Drones (URAD’s), or Semi-submergible Surface Unmanned long range Vehicles (SSUV’s) and Semi-submergible Surface Autonomous extended range Vehicles (SSAV’s) too.
Any of these get into the hands of any International Islamic Terrorist Groups, located and operate around the world, then International Shipping Trade Routes, especial Maritime Choke Point are in big trouble or in real harm’s way of being attacked by Air and Sea or Underwater Drones in the future and at any time too?
Yeah... Our mechanisms can be turned against us.( Y'know, like, our immune system, family, markets...)
Especially, at choke-points.
The weapons you reported on and the people who would turn them on others is a real drag. But, for most; no different from natural disasters regarding our ability to keep them from happening.
We can only prepare.
Hug your people tight and often.
No one can say when the "running around, screaming"-times will start.(((HUGS)))
May all your fears never come to pass.🖖🙂
I agree with Sal. The shippers should call on the Swiss navy...
16:25 I think it’s also important to remember that we also have Egypt and the Suez Canal being affected. While we, the US, might not have many interests moving through the sea, Egypt needs movement for funding its government and keeping itself politically stable. Remember Egypt is one of our closest allies and burning them by just yoloing off and letting their revenue drop by even more would be devastating to our friendship and alliance with them. It’d show them we don’t actually care in trying to support their interests over ours which is a poison pill to US foreign policy, economic policy, and national security policy that’d be devastating. What happens to any of our incredibly close allies in the pacific if they see us not helping our friends and allies in the Middle East? Will we come to help them and be true to our promises? Or will we abandon them? Same concern with the lack of support for Ukraine right now. Taiwan probably getting very nervous if we’re really serious about helping them when we can’t even pass aid packages that help the country currently being invaded, Ukraine, and them, the country with very high risks of being invaded by China.
Also 19:36 taxes aren’t everything. If it’s in the national interest to follow this policy should we not? Especially if it can actually limit how much we need to spend on defense spending by maintaining our current strategy that heavily works to divest capital to allies so we don’t need to spend as much on our defense budget? What happens if we lose those allies and suddenly have to deal with lowering our national security or massively increasing military spending because we couldn’t bother to help our friends, partners and allies?
Please keep speaking up about the problem with getting rid of the subsidies for building ships in the US, the consequences is obvious. What were they thinking?
What's REALLY Going With Shipping.
On February 8, CEO of Danish shipping giant Maersk, Vincent Clerc, said that the company has suffered “serious attacks” in the Red Sea and that there is no clarity over the costs accumulated from said disruptions. He added that he expects a continued shipping diversion from the Red Sea “for a while”.
Clerc also revealed that Maersk was informed by the U.S. Navy that the safe passage for all ships in the Red Sea can’t be guaranteed.
Overall, the U.S.-led intervention against the Houthis appears to be a complete failure. The Houthis will not likely halt their attacks until the war on Gaza is over.
Here's the deal. What is the American interest? America is interested in importing products that it buys from overseas, and is interested in exports which it sells overseas. The vast majority of those goods are shipped by ships that are not owned by the US, not flagged by the US, or not crewed by the US. Do Americans have an interest in those ships as well as ships with American cargo? Of course, but really the cargo is far more important and valuable then the ship or its crew. I'm sorry to be so blunt.
The rub comes in that we are not the only nation that has an interest in commerce. In fact, China, India, Russia, and the EU all have huge interests in this commerce. therefore all of us, and many others should be contributing to this effort. As you correctly point out the primary purpose of having a Navy is to secure our nation's commerce, NOT to fight wars.
the global economy and freedom of travel is very important to US national security. I get why HE is asking that question, but does he understand?
I can't see it being cost effective with the USN's current mix of missiles, ships, and other weapons. Cheaper for US cargos to go around Africa or be carried by folks that Houthi aren't targeting. The more that the US is involved, the less likely that someone like Egypt can negotiate with the Houthi or intervene with ground forces.
The problem is that the problem is much greater than shipping costs, insurance, etc. As Sal pointed out several days back, those routes from Asia to Europe and particularly LNG routes from the ME to Europe take 2x, 3x, sometimes even 4x as long for goods to be delivered. If you don't have a lot of extra ships (some categories like LNG tankers are already very tight) you are now in a situation where the quantity of goods delivered is inversely proportional to delivery time. So, you could for example see LNG deliveries to Europe literally get cut in half, at a time when Europe is already desperate for these alternative supplies. The shortages created would refire inflation much worse than before, as Europe is already squeezing the turnip of conservation just about as hard as it can. It would be an economic disaster, and the fallout would affect the US badly too, especially as Biden sems uninterested in making up the shortfall of LNG.
Don't believe me, run the ton-miles or cubic meter-mile calculations yourself. The results are likely to be catastrophic. They are also a huge boon to Russia, of course.
@@SpringIsBACK But the USN's current intervention isn't going to get those LNG tankers going back through the Red Sea. What do you propose instead: A land war in Yemen? Mining the Straits of Malacca to divert cargos to Europe? Europe, Egypt, and the Gulf States need to take care of the problem, not the USN.
Wish you'd mention that the founding of the standing U.S. Navy (in response to the Barbary pirates) was a result of the U.S. winning independence from Great Britain. That meant U.S. merchant vessels which used to be protected by the British Navy (since the U.S. was a British colony), suddenly lost their naval protection. And the Barbary states took advantage of that to capture and ransom U.S. merchant vessels and crew. So even the inception of the U.S. navy has its roots in the debate over what sort of commerce a navy should protect.
Unless it involved direct trade, I wouldn't expect the U.S. to protect Australian shipping without a fee. We can send our own Navy and work in unison with the U.S. just fine, but our government decided against it, possibly due to neighbouring regional tensions involving China. I'm all for us paying up to cover the American tax payer.
18:54 the Swiss Navy, good one Sal!
Love an honest assessment.
The short answer is NO, the US Navy should not be protecting non US shipping.
Thank you
I think it is relevant that while the information you share on your channel might be readily available to anyone using the methods you laid out, you take that work out of the equation by providing the information yourself. Why should anyone take the time to figure out things like ships positions, routes, destinations, etc, when they can watch you provide it to them?
Thanks!
Thanks!
No, the US no longer has the frigates and the number of destroyers for the task. Destroyers' role now is almost entirely carrier defence. If a trade route serves Europe, Asia, and the Gulf States, and they don't want to secure it, they are choosing to let the chips fall where they may. Maybe they decided higher rates going around Africa are cheaper than sending their naval fleets. If you recall the Malacca Strait piracy of the late '90s and '00s, it was addressed by the littoral states aided by Japan. When motivated, people are able to resolve problems.
Longstanding policies are not required to be eternal ones. Priorities change and funding is finite.
We have an interest in keeping those sea lanes open to free passage of all ships. An interconnected world economy means we are all effected by ships having to take costly and time consuming detours. I would say spend the money and levy an additional import tariff to cover the expense.
What the cargo is will determine the protection provided
The flag and tax won't matter if the cargo is of interest to the USA needs
ie support for the military machine
Equipping, (feeding) all the wars, bases, armada in the Med
The question is not in should or not. The question is HOW TO DO THIS IN CHEAP WAY!!! Modern weapons of attackers are much cheaper than a defense systems. It makes protection too expensive, cheaper to leave the area. Each antimissile rocket cost ten times more, than a target; and in real life it needs 5-6 antimissile rockets to down the target. US budget cannot afford it any more. US economical power goes down. And without control over sea trade, it will goes down faster
I think it is time to mention the variety of the shirts SAL is wearing
I like this blue one!
He needs Sal merch. I would buy a hat, shirt, and a bumper sticker.
Houthi problem will presist for quite some time. The United States responded to the deaths of three service members with the B-B1 Bomber flying out of Texas. No other country can do this and attack so many targets dispersed in numerous countries but even this will not solve problem. Air Force and Navy can control choke points and strategic areas but you need an army to take land to win the conflict. Will not happen here. U.S and Iran are talking through back channels to avoid futher expansion of conflict. Globalism ending and this presentation is an appropriate time to discuss what does the United States consider its self-interest in regards to shipping. Discussion is needed as Sal infers we need the cooperation of the executive and legislative branches to come up with a comprehensive plan while also working with unions and private corporations. This will also take time and planning. Good start here. Thanks Sal.
We need to somehow use this as a means of influencing ships back to our flag. I have no idea how. The other angle is solidifying the flags of convenience that are functionally American. Beyond that, of those flags, which are technically a flag that is also in free association with the U.S. Clarifying the degrees of "American" in these ways might start to clear up what is and is not our core interest.
Surely the US Navy's first obligation is to US flagged or related ships. But, in the general picture, having to go around South Africa presents many economic problems and risks to Western economies. So, as we (USA) can, I think we should be involved in eliminating interference to shipping in the Red Sea, Gulf of Aden, etc.
If most shipping has bypassed that hot zone you’re correct Sal what are we doing there ?