Iran Threatens to Close Strait of Hormuz
Had a scratch around and no real mention of warning shots !
Had "warning shots" been fired from a 50Cal, you would have thought that ordinary Indian fishermen would have turned tail or stopped dead in the water at least.
They would have needed to be pretty cavalier or pretty stupid not to.
Had they been bad-guys and kept on coming after the "warning shots", then evidence would have been found on their boat.
Forgive me, but it looks like another "shoot first ask questions later" kind of incident.
The last type of incident one needs in that area at this time really.
"Warning shots" is at the heart of the issue !
Had "warning shots" been fired from a 50Cal, you would have thought that ordinary Indian fishermen would have turned tail or stopped dead in the water at least.
They would have needed to be pretty cavalier or pretty stupid not to.
Had they been bad-guys and kept on coming after the "warning shots", then evidence would have been found on their boat.
Forgive me, but it looks like another "shoot first ask questions later" kind of incident.
The last type of incident one needs in that area at this time really.
"Warning shots" is at the heart of the issue !
Originally Posted by El Grifo
Had a scratch around and no real mention of warning shots !
Had "warning shots" been fired from a 50Cal, you would have thought that ordinary Indian fishermen would have turned tail or stopped dead in the water at least.
They would have needed to be pretty cavalier or pretty stupid not to.
Had they been bad-guys and kept on coming after the "warning shots", then evidence would have been found on their boat.
Forgive me, but it looks like another "shoot first ask questions later" kind of incident.
The last type of incident one needs in that area at this time really.
"Warning shots" is at the heart of the issue !
Had "warning shots" been fired from a 50Cal, you would have thought that ordinary Indian fishermen would have turned tail or stopped dead in the water at least.
They would have needed to be pretty cavalier or pretty stupid not to.
Had they been bad-guys and kept on coming after the "warning shots", then evidence would have been found on their boat.
Forgive me, but it looks like another "shoot first ask questions later" kind of incident.
The last type of incident one needs in that area at this time really.
"Warning shots" is at the heart of the issue !
July 16, 2012
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Release #102-12
USNS Rappahannock Fires After Vessel Ignores Warnings
By U.S. Naval Forces Central Command Public Affairs
U.S. FIFTH FLEET AREA OF OPERATIONS – An embarked security team aboard a U.S. Navy vessel fired upon a small motor vessel after it disregarded warnings and rapidly approached the U.S. ship near Jebel Ali, United Arab Emirates today.
In accordance with Navy force protection procedures, the sailors on the USNS Rappahannock (T-AO 204) used a series of non-lethal, preplanned responses to warn the vessel before resorting to lethal force.
The U.S. crew repeatedly attempted to warn the vessel’s operators to turn away from their deliberate approach. When those efforts failed to deter the approaching vessel, the security team on the Rappahannock fired rounds from a .50-caliber machine gun.
The incident is under investigation.
NAVCENT
Maritime Security Operation
Fifth Fleet
Navy
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Release #102-12
USNS Rappahannock Fires After Vessel Ignores Warnings
By U.S. Naval Forces Central Command Public Affairs
U.S. FIFTH FLEET AREA OF OPERATIONS – An embarked security team aboard a U.S. Navy vessel fired upon a small motor vessel after it disregarded warnings and rapidly approached the U.S. ship near Jebel Ali, United Arab Emirates today.
In accordance with Navy force protection procedures, the sailors on the USNS Rappahannock (T-AO 204) used a series of non-lethal, preplanned responses to warn the vessel before resorting to lethal force.
The U.S. crew repeatedly attempted to warn the vessel’s operators to turn away from their deliberate approach. When those efforts failed to deter the approaching vessel, the security team on the Rappahannock fired rounds from a .50-caliber machine gun.
The incident is under investigation.
NAVCENT
Maritime Security Operation
Fifth Fleet
Navy
the sailors on the USNS Rappahannock (T-AO 204) used a series of non-lethal, preplanned responses to warn the vessel before resorting to lethal force.
For the avoidance of doubt, when push comes to shove, it is definitely the side of the Task Force that I am on !
This does not mean I cannot question their tactics in a very volatile area !
Grifo, it is sometimes a "damned if you do and damned if you don't" problem, with USS Cole incident as the spectre haunting the back of any US Captain in that region.
At some point, if the warnings aren't heeded, your RoE set up a decision matrix that amounts to "shoot, since the taxpayers don't want you bringing back a broken ship and dead sailors."
That is how it works out, from the inside, regardless of how you choose to see it from the outside. There is duty of care to one's nation invovled here. The Pols know this and send ships into that situation anyway.
Yes, it's messy. *shrugs* That's life.
At some point, if the warnings aren't heeded, your RoE set up a decision matrix that amounts to "shoot, since the taxpayers don't want you bringing back a broken ship and dead sailors."
That is how it works out, from the inside, regardless of how you choose to see it from the outside. There is duty of care to one's nation invovled here. The Pols know this and send ships into that situation anyway.
Yes, it's messy. *shrugs* That's life.
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: home: United Kingdom
Posts: 779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think that Lonewolf has hit the nail on the head. The US taxpayer doesn't want a broken ship and dead sailors; if, in order to comply with the demand of the US tax payers, some non-US citizens get killed *shrugs*. That's life.
It's just not how 'we' expect to operate.
Duncs
It's just not how 'we' expect to operate.
Duncs
El Grifo: Iran has considerable form for using lethal force against US warships and merchant ships, even in supposed 'peacetime'. Given the recent publicity it has given to its capability for swarm attacks and its avowed intent to drive western powers from the Gulf, I leave you to assess a Commanding Officer's likely attitude towards small craft showing potentially hostile intent in the area.
I can assure you from experience that when a go-fast approaches your ship on a steady bearing at a closing speed of 60-70 mph after ignoring warnings by radio, loud hailer, flags, signal projector (BIG flashing searchlight) and ear-splitting siren, the difference between warning shots and shots on target becomes moot extremely quickly. With only a .50 cal machine gun available (as in the case of USNS Rappahannock) there is little difference between the range (or time) at which 'warning shots' can be aimed sufficiently accurately to be effective and the range at which shots need to act as 'physical stoppers'. Concern for the safety of the ship and people for whom you have been given responsibility is suddenly concentrated above all else.
If you have the luxury of a helicopter riding shotgun further away from the ship, then things might be different but not necessarily so, especially at night when it becomes even more difficult to distinguish friend (or neutral) from potentially deadly foe.
As ever, we will have to wait for the results of the investigation to know what really happened. However, there will always be those who find it so much easier to make judgements from the comfort of their keyboard at home, especially when blessed with hindsight.
I can assure you from experience that when a go-fast approaches your ship on a steady bearing at a closing speed of 60-70 mph after ignoring warnings by radio, loud hailer, flags, signal projector (BIG flashing searchlight) and ear-splitting siren, the difference between warning shots and shots on target becomes moot extremely quickly. With only a .50 cal machine gun available (as in the case of USNS Rappahannock) there is little difference between the range (or time) at which 'warning shots' can be aimed sufficiently accurately to be effective and the range at which shots need to act as 'physical stoppers'. Concern for the safety of the ship and people for whom you have been given responsibility is suddenly concentrated above all else.
If you have the luxury of a helicopter riding shotgun further away from the ship, then things might be different but not necessarily so, especially at night when it becomes even more difficult to distinguish friend (or neutral) from potentially deadly foe.
As ever, we will have to wait for the results of the investigation to know what really happened. However, there will always be those who find it so much easier to make judgements from the comfort of their keyboard at home, especially when blessed with hindsight.
Aviator Extraordinaire
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Oklahoma City, Oklahoma USA
Age: 76
Posts: 2,394
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Also, one needs to remember that the US Naval vessel involved was not a "War Ship", it was a Oiler, a refueling ship or in simpler terms, a floating bomb.
If I was on such a vessel, I could see the reason to use lethal force when nothing else seems to work.
But I was not there, neither was anyone else here, so...
If I was on such a vessel, I could see the reason to use lethal force when nothing else seems to work.
But I was not there, neither was anyone else here, so...
Like I said guys, If I had to line up behind one side or the other, you know exactly which line I would be in.
Not so sure about the "go-fast" and the "60-70mph" bit, but hey !
Not so sure about the "go-fast" and the "60-70mph" bit, but hey !
Last edited by El Grifo; 17th Jul 2012 at 17:30.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: The Great Midwest
Posts: 245
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
“Closing speed” is the rate at which one ship is approaching another. During a head-on approach the closing speed would be the arithmetic addition of the speed of the two vessels. From a tail-on position the closing speed would be the arithmetic difference of the two vessels which, if the front vessel is faster would be called opening speed. From any other angle the closing speed would be the geometric sum or geometric difference for opening speed if the vessel in front is faster.
Crew a 42 footer. Won last years league came in second the previous year. sailing the Atlantic November. Know the ropes a bit
from which quarter the offending fishing vessel aproaching from then ?
from which quarter the offending fishing vessel aproaching from then ?
Aviator Extraordinaire
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Oklahoma City, Oklahoma USA
Age: 76
Posts: 2,394
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
from which quarter the offending fishing vessel aproaching from then
Obviously, an approach on the bow causes more of a problem than on the quarter owing to the faster closing speed. 60-70 mph is only 52-60 kts and, even on their own, the Iranian Boghammers could do over 60 kts in reasonable conditions.
From Five Points - Information Dissemination
The Pivot towards Persia in 2012 is the most under reported major military buildups in modern media history, which is ironic considering the amount of hype in the media regarding Iran every day. The media has gone out of their way not to cover with any real attention the significant US and European military forces operating in the Persian Gulf region. The US Navy is now forward operating between 50-66% of all deployed aircraft carriers in the Gulf region. The US Navy is currently operating 66% of all US Navy minesweepers in the Persian Gulf. The US Air Force is now continuously rotating several of the most advanced aircraft squadrons in their inventory, including the F-22, to the Persian Gulf region. Nearly the entire training, workup, and deployment routine of every single East Coast Aircraft Carrier, Cruiser, Destroyer, Submarine, and Amphibious Ship is specifically tailored towards operating around the Middle East. Nearly all of the major defense budget adjustment increases for FY12 to date for the Air Force, Navy and SOCOM involve increasing capabilities or sustaining infrastructure in the USCENTCOM AOR. At the same time, the Europeans are reducing deployments to the Pacific and Western Hemisphere to focus naval forces for deployment to the Mediterranean Sea and Middle East regions. Despite the rhetoric that suggests there are numerous National Security issues facing the United States, there is only one national security question facing voters in 2012, and it is who they want their President to be during the hot and likely costly, bloody war between Israel and Iran that every measurable indicator one can use observing military force movements by European countries and the United States suggests is coming very soon.
And because predictions sure to go wrong can be entertaining thought exercises for bloggers, I'd wager a high quality Belgium wheat beer pint that if Israel attacks Iran before the election, with a 2 day margin of error I would say the date is October 13th
And because predictions sure to go wrong can be entertaining thought exercises for bloggers, I'd wager a high quality Belgium wheat beer pint that if Israel attacks Iran before the election, with a 2 day margin of error I would say the date is October 13th
The US Navy is now forward operating between 50-66% of all deployed aircraft carriers in the Gulf region
Link here. The US Navy Aircraft Carriers
How many do you claim are deployed to the "Gulf Region?"
What do you define as "the Gulf Region" in your vague declaration of something being up?
Care to answer the mail, or just make noise?
Which ones do you claim are so deployed?
USS Nimitz (CVN 68)
USS Dwight D. Eisenhower (CVN 69)
USS Carl Vinson (CVN 70)
USS Theodore Roosevelt (CVN 71)
USS Abraham Lincoln (CVN 72)
USS George Washington (CVN 73)
USS John C. Stennis (CVN 74)
USS Harry S. Truman (CVN 75)
USS Ronald Reagan (CVN 76)
USS Enterprise (CVN 65)
USS George H W Bush (CVN 77)
Last edited by Lonewolf_50; 13th Sep 2012 at 13:54.
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Torquay, England
Posts: 838
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Lonewolf,
I think the detail is in the wording...
'Deployed'
Do they mean operationally deployed and if so the Gulf 'Region' is a large area and if there are two or maybe three carriers in that area then is it possible that their claim MIGHT be accurate?
I think the detail is in the wording...
'Deployed'
Do they mean operationally deployed and if so the Gulf 'Region' is a large area and if there are two or maybe three carriers in that area then is it possible that their claim MIGHT be accurate?
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Thread Starter
3 out of 5 - percentage looks accurate.
CV Locations
CVN-65 Enterprise: 27Aug-11Sep2012, North Arabian Sea
CVN-68 Nimitz: 04Sep-11Sep2012, Persian Gulf
CVN-74 John C. Stennis: 27Aug2012, departed Bremerton to the western Pacific Ocean and the Arabian Gulf for an eight-month deployment
--------------------------------------
CVN-73 George Washington: 24Aug-11Sep2012, WestPac
CVN-75 Harry S. Truman: 03Sep-10Sep2012, carrier qualifications in the WestLant
Not Deployed
CVN-70 Carl Vinson Planned Incremental Availability (PIA) at pierside at Naval Air Station North Island
CVN-71 Theodore Roosevelt: 2 at Newport News Shipbuilding for the second half of RCOH
CVN-72 Abraham Lincoln: 07Aug2012, returned to new hormport Norfolk [ RCOH Schedule ]
CVN-76 Ronald Reagan: sailed into Puget Sound Naval Shipyard for DPIA and will take one year to complete
CVN-77 George H.W. Bush: 25Jul2012, moved to Norfolk Naval Shipyard for a Planned Incremental Availability (PIA)
CV Locations
CVN-65 Enterprise: 27Aug-11Sep2012, North Arabian Sea
CVN-68 Nimitz: 04Sep-11Sep2012, Persian Gulf
CVN-74 John C. Stennis: 27Aug2012, departed Bremerton to the western Pacific Ocean and the Arabian Gulf for an eight-month deployment
--------------------------------------
CVN-73 George Washington: 24Aug-11Sep2012, WestPac
CVN-75 Harry S. Truman: 03Sep-10Sep2012, carrier qualifications in the WestLant
Not Deployed
CVN-70 Carl Vinson Planned Incremental Availability (PIA) at pierside at Naval Air Station North Island
CVN-71 Theodore Roosevelt: 2 at Newport News Shipbuilding for the second half of RCOH
CVN-72 Abraham Lincoln: 07Aug2012, returned to new hormport Norfolk [ RCOH Schedule ]
CVN-76 Ronald Reagan: sailed into Puget Sound Naval Shipyard for DPIA and will take one year to complete
CVN-77 George H.W. Bush: 25Jul2012, moved to Norfolk Naval Shipyard for a Planned Incremental Availability (PIA)
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: by the Great Salt Lake, USA
Posts: 1,542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
3 out of 5 - percentage looks accurate.
CV Locations
CVN-65 Enterprise: 27Aug-11Sep2012, North Arabian Sea
CVN-68 Nimitz: 04Sep-11Sep2012, Persian Gulf
CVN-74 John C. Stennis: 27Aug2012, departed Bremerton to the western Pacific Ocean and the Arabian Gulf for an eight-month deployment
--------------------------------------
CVN-73 George Washington: 24Aug-11Sep2012, WestPac
CVN-75 Harry S. Truman: 03Sep-10Sep2012, carrier qualifications in the WestLant
Not Deployed
CVN-70 Carl Vinson Planned Incremental Availability (PIA) at pierside at Naval Air Station North Island
CVN-71 Theodore Roosevelt: 2 at Newport News Shipbuilding for the second half of RCOH
CVN-72 Abraham Lincoln: 07Aug2012, returned to new hormport Norfolk [ RCOH Schedule ]
CVN-76 Ronald Reagan: sailed into Puget Sound Naval Shipyard for DPIA and will take one year to complete
CVN-77 George H.W. Bush: 25Jul2012, moved to Norfolk Naval Shipyard for a Planned Incremental Availability (PIA)
CV Locations
CVN-65 Enterprise: 27Aug-11Sep2012, North Arabian Sea
CVN-68 Nimitz: 04Sep-11Sep2012, Persian Gulf
CVN-74 John C. Stennis: 27Aug2012, departed Bremerton to the western Pacific Ocean and the Arabian Gulf for an eight-month deployment
--------------------------------------
CVN-73 George Washington: 24Aug-11Sep2012, WestPac
CVN-75 Harry S. Truman: 03Sep-10Sep2012, carrier qualifications in the WestLant
Not Deployed
CVN-70 Carl Vinson Planned Incremental Availability (PIA) at pierside at Naval Air Station North Island
CVN-71 Theodore Roosevelt: 2 at Newport News Shipbuilding for the second half of RCOH
CVN-72 Abraham Lincoln: 07Aug2012, returned to new hormport Norfolk [ RCOH Schedule ]
CVN-76 Ronald Reagan: sailed into Puget Sound Naval Shipyard for DPIA and will take one year to complete
CVN-77 George H.W. Bush: 25Jul2012, moved to Norfolk Naval Shipyard for a Planned Incremental Availability (PIA)
1. Nimitz is not in the Persian Gulf, she is in home-port in Washington state.
2. Ike is in the Persian Gulf.
3. Stennis is heading to the Gulf to replace Enterprise, which will immediately head home for her decommissioning ceremony, to be held on 01 December 2012!
Therefore, there are only 2 of 5 (40%) actually in the Middle East area of operations. and that is how many will be there for the next couple of months!
Deployed:
CVN-69 Dwight D. Eisenhower 04Sep-11Sep2012, Persian Gulf
Not Deployed:
CVN-68 Nimitz: 20Aug2012, returned to Everett, WA.
Last edited by GreenKnight121; 14th Sep 2012 at 02:28.