(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.
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.