Anyone ever served in the military here? If you never have worn the uniform or fought for this country , you probably have no clue what harms way feels like in a deadly situation and there is no time for chit chat with the enemy or an encounter that is questionable. We/the US Navy is not out there for boating and water recreation. So I say blast the dudes that get in close to one of our ships.
USNS Rappahannock
- Thread starter dave1251
- Start date
- Status
Wife's last posting was on the USNS Niagara Falls. Her's was a supply ship while the Rappahannock is an oiler. Had it been Cole'd, it would have been much more spectacular. Kudos to the .50 crew for good shooting.
Wife says the pirate problem was always present. They would come up close, throw a line, and come aboard to steal anything they can as quickly as they can. There was always the problem of being taken over, as well, by the more adventurous pirates.
US ships are always being harassed by locals in the region. Some are haters. Some are macho thrill seekers. Some are simply stupid as only third worlders can be.
USNS ships are merchant marine with a contingent of USN, wife says.
Wife says the pirate problem was always present. They would come up close, throw a line, and come aboard to steal anything they can as quickly as they can. There was always the problem of being taken over, as well, by the more adventurous pirates.
US ships are always being harassed by locals in the region. Some are haters. Some are macho thrill seekers. Some are simply stupid as only third worlders can be.
USNS ships are merchant marine with a contingent of USN, wife says.
Originally Posted By: tom slick
Originally Posted By: Axeman
This "warn, shoot, ask questions" procedure would have prevented the USS Cole bombing back in 2000. Well done, Rappahannock security team. I look forward to seeing what turns up in the investigation.
No it wouldn't have. The USS Cole was expecting trash barges to dock with it. They had their guard down because the bombers used the trash boat as a trojan horse.
Actually, that's not exactly true. The Rules of Engagement were more restrictive then and the procedures had not been developed for vetting approaching boats. They were the first to see this kind of attack, and did not have reason to suspect that the boat was a threat. They had armed sailors on watch, but they were hamstrung in their shoot decision...
The Cole was sent to Yemen as a political gesture of good will - it was not a safe harbor and that ship was put in that position by political leadership.
The CO of the Cole wisely set the ship to a higher level of watertight readiness than was usually set in port. Though the press vilified him for being unprepared, he was more prepared than required, and as prepared as one could be given the circumstances. Had he not set Zebra, the ship would have been lost, and Al Qaeda would have claimed a much greater victory.
Originally Posted By: Axeman
This "warn, shoot, ask questions" procedure would have prevented the USS Cole bombing back in 2000. Well done, Rappahannock security team. I look forward to seeing what turns up in the investigation.
No it wouldn't have. The USS Cole was expecting trash barges to dock with it. They had their guard down because the bombers used the trash boat as a trojan horse.
Actually, that's not exactly true. The Rules of Engagement were more restrictive then and the procedures had not been developed for vetting approaching boats. They were the first to see this kind of attack, and did not have reason to suspect that the boat was a threat. They had armed sailors on watch, but they were hamstrung in their shoot decision...
The Cole was sent to Yemen as a political gesture of good will - it was not a safe harbor and that ship was put in that position by political leadership.
The CO of the Cole wisely set the ship to a higher level of watertight readiness than was usually set in port. Though the press vilified him for being unprepared, he was more prepared than required, and as prepared as one could be given the circumstances. Had he not set Zebra, the ship would have been lost, and Al Qaeda would have claimed a much greater victory.
Originally Posted By: Mr_Incredible
Wife's last posting was on the USNS Niagara Falls. Her's was a supply ship while the Rappahannock is an oiler. Had it been Cole'd, it would have been much more spectacular. Kudos to the .50 crew for good shooting.
Wife says the pirate problem was always present. They would come up close, throw a line, and come aboard to steal anything they can as quickly as they can. There was always the problem of being taken over, as well, by the more adventurous pirates.
US ships are always being harassed by locals in the region. Some are haters. Some are macho thrill seekers. Some are simply stupid as only third worlders can be.
USNS ships are merchant marine with a contingent of USN, wife says.
Your wife is right...but then, isn't she always right?
Wife's last posting was on the USNS Niagara Falls. Her's was a supply ship while the Rappahannock is an oiler. Had it been Cole'd, it would have been much more spectacular. Kudos to the .50 crew for good shooting.
Wife says the pirate problem was always present. They would come up close, throw a line, and come aboard to steal anything they can as quickly as they can. There was always the problem of being taken over, as well, by the more adventurous pirates.
US ships are always being harassed by locals in the region. Some are haters. Some are macho thrill seekers. Some are simply stupid as only third worlders can be.
USNS ships are merchant marine with a contingent of USN, wife says.
Your wife is right...but then, isn't she always right?
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: antiqueshell
This is just an unfortunate accident, there was no terrorist motive involved it was just incompetence on the part of the captain of the small boat.
Why the US media is sensationalizing it..... seems obvious to me, an agenda is afoot.
Not an accident at all - pirate attacks happen nearly every day in that part of the world, it's just rare that they are bold enough, or stupid enough, to go after a USNS ship...
This was no more an accident than an attempted car-jacking is an "accident".
This is just an unfortunate accident, there was no terrorist motive involved it was just incompetence on the part of the captain of the small boat.
Why the US media is sensationalizing it..... seems obvious to me, an agenda is afoot.
Not an accident at all - pirate attacks happen nearly every day in that part of the world, it's just rare that they are bold enough, or stupid enough, to go after a USNS ship...
This was no more an accident than an attempted car-jacking is an "accident".
Originally Posted By: tom slick
Originally Posted By: Axeman
This "warn, shoot, ask questions" procedure would have prevented the USS Cole bombing back in 2000. Well done, Rappahannock security team. I look forward to seeing what turns up in the investigation.
No it wouldn't have. The USS Cole was expecting trash barges to dock with it. They had their guard down because the bombers used the trash boat as a trojan horse.
Petty Officer John Washak said that right after the blast, a senior chief petty officer ordered him to turn an M-60 machine gun on the Cole' fantail away from a second small boat approaching. "With blood still on my face," he said, he was told: "That's the rules of engagement: no shooting unless we're shot at." He added, "In the military, it's like we're trained to hesitate now. If somebody had seen something wrong and shot, he probably would have been court-martialed." Petty Officer Jennifer Kudrick said that if the sentries had fired on the suicide craft "we would have gotten in more trouble for shooting two foreigners than losing seventeen American sailors."
Robinson, Stephen (November 15, 2000). "Bombed US warship was defended by sailors with unloaded guns". The Daily Telegraph (London: Sunday Telegraph).
Originally Posted By: Axeman
This "warn, shoot, ask questions" procedure would have prevented the USS Cole bombing back in 2000. Well done, Rappahannock security team. I look forward to seeing what turns up in the investigation.
No it wouldn't have. The USS Cole was expecting trash barges to dock with it. They had their guard down because the bombers used the trash boat as a trojan horse.
Petty Officer John Washak said that right after the blast, a senior chief petty officer ordered him to turn an M-60 machine gun on the Cole' fantail away from a second small boat approaching. "With blood still on my face," he said, he was told: "That's the rules of engagement: no shooting unless we're shot at." He added, "In the military, it's like we're trained to hesitate now. If somebody had seen something wrong and shot, he probably would have been court-martialed." Petty Officer Jennifer Kudrick said that if the sentries had fired on the suicide craft "we would have gotten in more trouble for shooting two foreigners than losing seventeen American sailors."
Robinson, Stephen (November 15, 2000). "Bombed US warship was defended by sailors with unloaded guns". The Daily Telegraph (London: Sunday Telegraph).
Kestas
Staff member
Originally Posted By: Mystic
Of course, regardless of any facts in this case, the United States will be made out to be the bad guy.
At this point, I don't care anymore about the 'Monday morning quarterbacking' from the rest of the world. It's about time the US regained the respect it once had from the rest of the world, instead of the wimps we've made of ourselves.
Don't test our limits!
Disclaimer: I have not served in uniform.
Of course, regardless of any facts in this case, the United States will be made out to be the bad guy.
At this point, I don't care anymore about the 'Monday morning quarterbacking' from the rest of the world. It's about time the US regained the respect it once had from the rest of the world, instead of the wimps we've made of ourselves.
Don't test our limits!
Disclaimer: I have not served in uniform.
The vessel in the video is a private ship, not a Navy ship.
The contractors are also under gunned. If the pirates were serious and had RPG's they would be in trouble.
I would expect and hope the Navy had a bit more than a couple AR15's even on a supply ship. At least a .50 or a 20mm deck mount.
Also if it were a Navy ship I would expect them to try to stop the skiff from hitting them. If that skiff were loaded it could have been another USS Cole. Usually their is a 200 yard zone of death around any Navy ship.
The contractors are also under gunned. If the pirates were serious and had RPG's they would be in trouble.
I would expect and hope the Navy had a bit more than a couple AR15's even on a supply ship. At least a .50 or a 20mm deck mount.
Also if it were a Navy ship I would expect them to try to stop the skiff from hitting them. If that skiff were loaded it could have been another USS Cole. Usually their is a 200 yard zone of death around any Navy ship.
Last edited:
Yah, they were thinking of virgins and they got Virginians. Just out of high school, I was an apprentice ship fitter,on AOR 5,the Wabash, when it was built at Fore River. The Rappahannock was built at Avondale in LA. It is a double hulled tanker.
COMMENTS: "Not an accident at all..." "They were testing the ship..." "Harassing the ship."
Maybe. Maybe not. Might just have been incompetence on the part of a poorly trained, third-world crew. You might recall that Air France airliner flying from Brazil to Europe that crashed into the sea about a year or two ago. Turns out the junior copilot who was flying during the emergency was pulling the stick back the whole time, putting the Airbus into a stall that led to the crash. It wasn't until the very end that the other two senior pilots in the cockpit realized what he was doing, but by then it was too late. The dude inexplicable forgot all his world-class training as if it never happened, putting the plane in the water. He clearly had panicked. If that can happen, then that fishing boat could have stumbled into the warship's path through sheer stupidity, and nothing else. Or, yes, it certainly could have been a hostile act. But never downplay the possibility of simple incompetence.
Maybe. Maybe not. Might just have been incompetence on the part of a poorly trained, third-world crew. You might recall that Air France airliner flying from Brazil to Europe that crashed into the sea about a year or two ago. Turns out the junior copilot who was flying during the emergency was pulling the stick back the whole time, putting the Airbus into a stall that led to the crash. It wasn't until the very end that the other two senior pilots in the cockpit realized what he was doing, but by then it was too late. The dude inexplicable forgot all his world-class training as if it never happened, putting the plane in the water. He clearly had panicked. If that can happen, then that fishing boat could have stumbled into the warship's path through sheer stupidity, and nothing else. Or, yes, it certainly could have been a hostile act. But never downplay the possibility of simple incompetence.
It is nice to see and read about those that support our action against pirates and the like. Its sure better then the bendover crowd.imho
.50 > pirate
If we gave the small boat crew flowers and chocolates instead, we would still be the bad guys.
A different mentality exists around the world, compared to the USA.
A different mentality exists around the world, compared to the USA.
Originally Posted By: CourierDriver
It is nice to see and read about those that support our action against pirates and the like. Its sure better then the bendover crowd.imho
Gotta ask...
Exactly who is this "bendover crowd" who roots for pirates, and how have they sympathized with the pirates in the past? And how were the guys on the fishing boat "pirates and the like?" So far those fishermen appear to be morons to me based on the news reports, but not terrorists, pirates, kidnappers, or murderers like those off the coast of Somalia. Not sure why one would celebrate seeing some idiots get their heads blown off. Did they even have weapons on their boat? If they were idiots who ignored warnings, then they stepped on their own schlongs. But, absent evidence they were criminals, I won’t be celebrating their new bullet holes tonight over a beer.
It is nice to see and read about those that support our action against pirates and the like. Its sure better then the bendover crowd.imho
Gotta ask...
Exactly who is this "bendover crowd" who roots for pirates, and how have they sympathized with the pirates in the past? And how were the guys on the fishing boat "pirates and the like?" So far those fishermen appear to be morons to me based on the news reports, but not terrorists, pirates, kidnappers, or murderers like those off the coast of Somalia. Not sure why one would celebrate seeing some idiots get their heads blown off. Did they even have weapons on their boat? If they were idiots who ignored warnings, then they stepped on their own schlongs. But, absent evidence they were criminals, I won’t be celebrating their new bullet holes tonight over a beer.
More information. I do not feel sorry for the injured and dead there is more than ample opportunity to turn your boat around with out approaching the ship.
http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2012/07/18/for-navy-crew-shooting-at-indian-fishermen-was-last-resort/
"The Navy ship will never start at direct lethal fire. There's a whole rules of engagement that occurs that has different levels," Daly said.
Daly spelled out how those warning measures work, starting with nonlethal means such as radio calls using common civilian channels, loudspeaker announcements, and flares and lights to get attention.
In the case of the Rappahannock incident, within a minute of the boat approaching, the security team "initiated first level of defensive, nonlethal warning procedures," according to the military document. The vessel was closing in and was within 900 yards but "ignored the warning and continued toward" the Navy ship.
Daly said the next level is to fire warning shots, shooting into the water ahead of the encroaching boat but without putting the boat or passengers in danger. The Rappahannock security team initiated a "next level of defensive, nonlethal procedures" one minute later, but those were ignored by the approaching boat that was just 150 yards away, according to the Central Command document.
At this point, according to Daly, the crew will fire. This occurred when the boat was just 100 yards from the Rappahannock (point #5 on the diagram), with a .50-caliber machine gun. The intent of the direct fire is not to harm people, it is to stop the approaching boat, Daly said.
But the Navy acknowledges when it opens fire on another vessel, there is a risk people could get hurt or killed. Daly said that's why direct fire is the action of last resort.
"This is a very deliberate and responsible graduated response," Daly said.
Because this was a civilian crew other than the security team, it would not have been the master of the Rappahannock who ordered the security team to open fire on the approaching boat.
In this case, the senior Naval officer leading the security team would have given the order to fire, explained Daly.
After Rappahannock opened fire, the boat "slowed for the first time and turned to port, passing astern of the Rappahannock. The Navy crew then re-initiated nonlethal procedures with the boat, which was within 90 yards of the naval vessel. The boat then stopped and the Rappahannock "goes to full speed to separate from the vessel.
Unfortunately, this kind of incident may happen again as the Navy sends more ships into the crowded Persian Gulf that is rife with tension.
When a ship's underway, coming in or out of harbors or in narrow passages" you risk having close encounters, Daly said.
http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2012/07/18/for-navy-crew-shooting-at-indian-fishermen-was-last-resort/
"The Navy ship will never start at direct lethal fire. There's a whole rules of engagement that occurs that has different levels," Daly said.
Daly spelled out how those warning measures work, starting with nonlethal means such as radio calls using common civilian channels, loudspeaker announcements, and flares and lights to get attention.
In the case of the Rappahannock incident, within a minute of the boat approaching, the security team "initiated first level of defensive, nonlethal warning procedures," according to the military document. The vessel was closing in and was within 900 yards but "ignored the warning and continued toward" the Navy ship.
Daly said the next level is to fire warning shots, shooting into the water ahead of the encroaching boat but without putting the boat or passengers in danger. The Rappahannock security team initiated a "next level of defensive, nonlethal procedures" one minute later, but those were ignored by the approaching boat that was just 150 yards away, according to the Central Command document.
At this point, according to Daly, the crew will fire. This occurred when the boat was just 100 yards from the Rappahannock (point #5 on the diagram), with a .50-caliber machine gun. The intent of the direct fire is not to harm people, it is to stop the approaching boat, Daly said.
But the Navy acknowledges when it opens fire on another vessel, there is a risk people could get hurt or killed. Daly said that's why direct fire is the action of last resort.
"This is a very deliberate and responsible graduated response," Daly said.
Because this was a civilian crew other than the security team, it would not have been the master of the Rappahannock who ordered the security team to open fire on the approaching boat.
In this case, the senior Naval officer leading the security team would have given the order to fire, explained Daly.
After Rappahannock opened fire, the boat "slowed for the first time and turned to port, passing astern of the Rappahannock. The Navy crew then re-initiated nonlethal procedures with the boat, which was within 90 yards of the naval vessel. The boat then stopped and the Rappahannock "goes to full speed to separate from the vessel.
Unfortunately, this kind of incident may happen again as the Navy sends more ships into the crowded Persian Gulf that is rife with tension.
When a ship's underway, coming in or out of harbors or in narrow passages" you risk having close encounters, Daly said.
Until you've been the person in charge of making the shoot decision, and until all the facts are known in this case, making judgement isn't worthwhile.
Pete Daly is a fair and reasonable man, with whom I have had the pleasure of working and he's exceptionally experienced and capable. You can trust his analysis of the situation.
Pete Daly is a fair and reasonable man, with whom I have had the pleasure of working and he's exceptionally experienced and capable. You can trust his analysis of the situation.
I have every confidence in the Commander of a US Navel vessel to make the proper call with the information he had in such a situation.
Any Monday morning quarterbacking done by the media is pure [censored], put a little faith in our Navy.
Any Monday morning quarterbacking done by the media is pure [censored], put a little faith in our Navy.
Last edited:
If it wasn't for the Navy, we might have been speaking Japanese after 1945, imho. Its a thought
- Status
Similar threads
