GLOBAL JIHAD Al-Qaida targeting cruise ships, aircraft carriers

WorldNetDaily.com ^ | December 28, 2003 | WorldNetDaily.com

[Jacob Kell]

U.S. intelligence officials say al-Qaida has turned its terror sights to a sea jihad, targeting Western luxury liners and aircraft carriers.

The Brisbane Courier-Mail reports owners of the world's largest cruise ship – the recently launched $1.3 billion Queen Mary 2 – confirmed terror threats hang over its maiden voyage slated for early next year.

The paper reports U.S. intelligence officials also found evidence Osama bin Laden's terror network planned to attack the British aircraft carrier Ark Royal as it passed through the Gibraltar Straits en route to the Iraq theater of war earlier this year.

WorldNetDaily exclusively reported Sept. 29, based on intelligence obtained by Joseph Farah's G2 Bulletin, that al-Qaida has purchased at least 15 ships in the last two years, creating a veritable terror armada.

G2 Bulletin's sources said potential targets of the al-Qaida armada include civilian ports, oil rigs and cruise liners.

Lloyds of London reportedly helped Britain's MI6 and the U.S. CIA trace the sales of the "terror ships" made through a Greek shipping agent suspected of having direct contacts with bin Laden.

The ships fly the flags of Yemen and Somalia – where they are registered – and are capable of carrying cargoes of lethal chemicals, a "dirty bomb" or even a nuclear weapon, according to G2B sources.

The freighters left their home ports in the Horn of Africa in early September, some were believed destined for ports in Asia.

WorldNetDaily reported Oct. 13 on growing warnings around the world that the next dramatic terror attack is more likely to come at sea than in the air.

Earlier this year, a chemical tanker, the Dewi Madrim, was hijacked by machinegun-bearing pirates in speedboats off the coast of Sumatra. But these weren't ordinary pirates looking for booty. These were terrorists learning how to drive a ship. They also kidnapped officers in an effort to acquire expertise on conducting a maritime attack.

There is also evidence terrorists are learning about diving, with a view to attacking ships from below. The Abu Sayyaf group in the Philippines kidnapped a maintenance engineer in a Sabah holiday resort in 2000. On his release in June this year, the engineer said his kidnappers knew he was a diving instructor – they wanted instruction. The owner of a diving school near Kuala Lumpur has recently reported a number of ethnic Malays wanting to learn about diving, but being strangely uninterested in learning about decompression.

This resembles reports that Sept. 11 hijackers who attended U.S. flight schools were only interested in learning how to fly planes, not land.

The Courier-Mail reports U.S. intelligence services believe scores of acoustic sea-mines, found to have disappeared from a naval base in North Korea by a U2 spy plane, could be aboard bin Laden's "terror ships," the number of which it puts at 28.

According to the paper, the capture of al-Qaida's chief of naval operations, Ahmad Belai al-Neshari, helped reveal the blueprint of the group's maritime plots.

Al-Neshari was found carrying a 180-page dossier that listed large cruise liners sailing from Western ports as "targets of opportunity."

If a maritime terror attack comes, it won't be the first. In October 2000, the USS Cole, a heavily armed ship protected with the latest radar defenses, was hit by an al-Qaida suicide crew. Seventeen American soldiers died. Two years later, following the attacks on the Twin Towers, a similar attack was carried out against a French supertanker off the coast of Yemen.

[rs79bm]

Terror ships should be rather easy to track via the various detection equipment that air craft carriers have on board.

[somemoreequalthanothers]

I doubt they'll be hitting a carrier anytime soon. I don't know about the Brits, but our carriers travel with one hell of an entourage of ships, and with the air cover, I don't think they could sniff it. The ragheads will have to stick to targets they can handle, i.e. defenseless civilians.

[LibWhacker]

That's rich. I'd love to see those ignorant throwbacks try to attack an American carrier.

[stylin19a]

They got to the USS Cole.

So far, we have skyscraper alerts, subway alerts, fly-over country alerts, airplane alerts, cruise ship alerts, aircraft carrier alerts, border alerts, nuke reactor alerts etc... given enough alerts, everything, everywhere will be alerted all the time....

[_Jim]

GLOBAL JIHAD Al-Qaida targeting cruise ships, aircraft carriers

In their dreams, they wish, or "What I (a jihadist) would do if I had a billion dollars" ...

Their chance for success approches zero from the *negative* side of the number line ...

[_Jim]

via the various detection equipment that air craft carriers have on board

Including or excluding such visual means as binoculars used in conjunction with human eyeballs?

[e_engineer]

The Suez Canal, Mar. 4, 2002 — The Los Angeles-class attack submarine, USS Boise (SSN 764) leads the fast combat support ship USS Seattle (AOE 3) and the guided missile cruiser USS Hue City (CG 66) as the ships of USS John F. Kennedy (CV 67) Battle Group transit the Suez Canal. The Kennedy battle group will rendezvous with USS Theodore Roosevelt (CVN 71) to relieve "TR" in supporting Operation Enduring Freedom. U.S. Navy photo by Photographer's Mate 1st Class Jim Hampshire.

Confined spaces are very dangerous to our fleet. Any attacks from the sheetheads will take place in port, or during a canal passage IMHO. The open sea is too big and Al Queda has no way to locate our ships there.

[sheik yerbouty]

Find the jihadists and terminate them with "extreme prejudice". Nothing else will do!

[Nanasay]

Jacob.. They don't like to be called ragheads.. They wear sheets on their heads.. Therefore you need to call them sheetheads..

[BattleFlag]

They got to the USS Cole.

In port, where a ship is most vulnerable.

Plus, that was about 100 years ago metaphorically speaking, we are at an entirely different level of readiness now.

Unless I am missing something this is actually good news. At sea they are isolated and easy to spot.

And once spotted.....Boo Yaaah!!! Al Q-da sleeps with the fishes.

Click on my nic to see some of what they'll get, (my era, the hardware is much better now)

[jbstrick]

Confined spaces bite...

That 688 sub is a sitting duck.

[Howie66]

The only GOOD member of Al-Queda is a DEAD member of Al-Queda.

It is incumbent on US to make certain that every member of Al-Queda is a GOOD member of Al-Queda.

[Publius6961]

based on intelligence obtained by Joseph Farah's G2 Bulletin, that al-Qaida has purchased at least 15 ships in the last two years, creating a veritable terror armada.

And it would be indeed a shame and unfortunate if all known al-qaeda ships simply vanished one day.
I wonder what part of "preemptive" these mangy dogs don't understand?

[hedgetrimmer]

They got the USS Cole because of the beknighted politics of General Anthony Zinni, Madeleine Albright, William Cohen and of course Bill Clinton.

They forbade protection and self defense measures normally taken in enemy ports. They used our sailors as guinea pigs in there social engineering calling our sailors and marines "soldier diplomats". None of the sailors on the quarterdeck were allowed weapons while they were in port. They could not even fire a warning shot.

[RicocheT]

GLOBAL JIHAD Al-Qaida targeting cruise ships, aircraft carriers

MARS LANDERS

[gg188]

Hilarious!

[gg188]

They forbade protection and self defense measures normally taken in enemy ports. They used our sailors as guinea pigs in there social engineering calling our sailors and marines "soldier diplomats". None of the sailors on the quarterdeck were allowed weapons while they were in port. They could not even fire a warning shot.

Do you know if this has changed and is different now? I expect so, and certainly hope so. I'd like to see women in combat and other Clinton military social experiments ended. The fact they went after Colonel West, for example, makes me wonder...

[stylin19a]

Good point ! we wont make that mistake again.

[Kozak]

Yeah. Aircraft carriers. All they have to do is get through the AWACS bubble, the escort group, the fighter cap, past the Aegis cruisers and AA destroyers, past the Standard missle batteries,past the Helo screen, past the hand held stingers and finally the Phalanx close in defences and the 50 calibers. Piece o cake for a 7th century Jihadi.
A little tougher then blowing up pizzarias and transit buses, you cowardly scum.

[Kozak]

They got to the USS Cole.

A sucker punch on a ship in port where it never should have been. Not gonna happen again, certainly not to any carrier.

[Kozak]

They got to the USS Cole.

A sucker punch on a ship in port where it never should have been. Not gonna happen again, certainly not to any carrier.

[Kozak]

That 688 sub is a sitting duck

Note the Aegis missle cruiser sitting in the background. NOTHING that flies or floats is gonna get near those ships.

[Enterprise]

Well, a cruise ship is logical. A carrier is pretty far fetched. BUT - the small voice inside me tells me that if they are thinking about it, they might find a way. It might be a miniscule chance, but to people who will fly airplanes into skyscrapers, that might be all they need.

[thoughtomator]

That 688 sub is a sitting duck.

A sitting duck for what exactly? Even in a canal, a sub with surface support is not a viable target with the kind of gear jihadis can rig up.

[luvbach1]

When some of these threats materialize into grievous losses of life, as they almost cerainly will, perhaps it will serve the purpose of waking up, the hard way, those multi-nationals who dismiss the war on terror as Bush's war.It is Bush's war only because, with few notable exceptions, our boys are doing the dying.

[No Truce With Kings]

We should hope they target an American carrier. There is no tougher nut in the world -- even in port.

Mr. Jihad, meet Mr. Phalanx. Mr. Phalanx, give Mr. Jihad a big steel group hug. Mr. Jihad. . . Mr. Jihad? Aww. Looks like Mr. Jihad took Mr. Phalanx's steel group hug to heart. Mr. Jihad isn't angry at Uncle Sam any more. Mr. Jihad isn't angry at anyone any more. Or happy, or sad, or much of anything, other than getting ready for his big date with 72 virgins.

[ChefKeith]

Seems to Me that if We know what port and when they left it that the time is right to do a little live torpedo practice.

(of course We can provide an anchor for a PFD if they need it)

[Merdoug]

I hope they TRY to attack us at sea, and I hope we KILL every one of them. Taking prisoners is all "nice" and "compassionate" of us, but it leaves enemies ALIVE. What did that guy (Gengas Khan?) say? If you knock down your enemy, don't yurn your back on him until he is dead.

[ChefKeith]

[NeonKnight]

I was never in the Navy (AF) but the subtitle on that pic twice refers to it as a Battle Group. I thought they were called Carrier Groups? Isn't a Battle Group used with Battleships?

[Stonewall Jackson]

You are right about an American carrier being a tough nut to crack. The last US carrier to be sunk was the Bismarck Sea on Feb. 21, 1945 off Iwo Jima by two kamikaze hits. The closest anyone has ever come since then was the United States itself, during disaster on the Forrestal off Vietnam, and even then she survived the detonation of 11 two thousand-pound bombs on the flight deck.

[e_engineer]

The photo and description came directly from a Navy web site.

You have a good question, in my searches I find references to Carrier Strike groups and Carrier Battle groups. Globalsecurity.org has the Battle Group replaced with Strike Group like this:

George Washington Strike Group
George Washington Battle Group
[GWBATGRU]

Perhaps the Navy has recently changed the name from Battle Group to Strike Group?

[mathurine]

If Yemen and Somalian flags fly on these terror ships, and considering that both so-called nations have been complicit in terrorism before, destroy both countries in their entirity after public declaration to Islam that we are commencing to tire of their idiotic religious nonsense. Sorry, but this is a religious war Islam has declared on everyone else, and Islam has got to be held to account for what it is perpetrating. Yemen and Somalia would be good places to start, because neither has a damned thing that anyone wants or needs.

[e_engineer]

A sitting duck for what exactly? Even in a canal, a sub with surface support is not a viable target with the kind of gear jihadis can rig up.

The article indicates that Al Queda is training divers, and may have aquired acoustic mines from North Korea:

The Courier-Mail reports U.S. intelligence services believe scores of acoustic sea-mines, found to have disappeared from a naval base in North Korea by a U2 spy plane, could be aboard bin Laden's "terror ships," the number of which it puts at 28.

[Arkinsaw]

A sitting duck for what exactly?

I'd rather not say for what exactly, but anything from that shoreline would be at point-blank range. It almost happened in a similar way in a previous war between one of our allies and another nation. Point-blank range provides for little reaction time from support vessels.

[Arkinsaw]

All they have to do is get through the AWACS bubble, the escort group, the fighter cap, past the Aegis cruisers and AA destroyers, past the Standard missle batteries,past the Helo screen, past the hand held stingers and finally the Phalanx close in defences and the 50 calibers.

Not when transiting a confined space like the canal in the photo.

[GeekDejure]

They don't like to be called ragheads.. They wear sheets on their heads.. Therefore you need to call them sheetheads.

Oak Hay... Grandmother with an attitude... here is your attitudinal assignment: Get the sheetheads to wear disposible diapers so we can throw the diaperheads out with the diaper water !!! ;-))

.

[speekinout]

A cruise ship makes a lot of sense as a target. They're defenseless, and their itineraries are well known. The large ones carry more than 3,000 civilians. That sounds vile enough for a terrorist.
The US could protect these ships using aerial surveillance if they knew to do it. Once again, we are dependent on intelligence.

[Prodigal Son]

Philosophy?

[hedgetrimmer]

It is standard procedure to have armed sailors on the quarterdeck of a warship. This procedure was reactivated after the USS Cole incident.

To be honest, I am shocked that the Navy leadership went along with the "soldier diplomat" thing, but under Clinton, the military endured a lot of abuse.

[hedgetrimmer]

If the shipping business wanted to protect lives and assets they could sail in convoys. Also remember WWII? Ships were sunk by german u-boats. Then the shipping lines got wise and put Marines and guns on their ship in addition to convoying.

Some people might not like to see marines on their vacation cruises, but it also might make it sink in to the general public that the war on terror is a war after all.

[JSteff]

A carrier is just a "wet" dream for the al kiddies. The will not get any where near one. That they would even think of it tells me they are getting a bit desperate.

Any aircraft approaching would be splashed. You would need a very large ship to put enough explosives near one to make any real problems for a carrier. The escorting ships or subs would scratch a big ship in a flash... literally.

Maybe the whole idea is just a misdirection and all they will go after is a cruise ship but to think they could even get a carrier is a joke.

[DarthMaulrulesok]

It's never a good idea to underestimate your enemy!

Granted, it's MUCH more likely the terrorists will go after a civilian cruise ship - it's chock full of defenseless women and children, just the type of target to make al-qaida members feel "brave and honorable". However, if they really wanted to target a carrier, it could be done. Here's how:

1. Target a known choke point in narrow waters a carrier must travel through (straits of gibralter, suez canal, maybe others in Pacific).

2. Get a large group of terrorists assembled and have them buy a large number (100+) speedboats, dhows, fishing boats etc and small planes. These will be used a human-guided missiles.

3. Have sympathizers among the local population watch out for the carrier and use some pre-arranged signal (call to prayer, runners NOT radio to let them know when the carrier is in the pre arranged spot where it can't maneuvar and the escorts are ahead or behind.

4. Launch all boats and planes in a single coordinated kamikaze attack. Each boat/plane can easily carry a ton of explosives. Even if the carrier is expecting trouble, the short engagement range and large numbers of attackers could overload the defenses. Even if 90 out of a hundred attackers are destroyed, enough would get through to at least seriously damage the carrier. Remember, the Cole was nearly sunk by ONE such suicide attacker.

I'm not saying this will happen, but I think it is one more possibility we need to watch out for. I do think it's much more likely that the terrorists will try to hijack a LNG tanker and ram it into a port, or just use one of their tramp freighters, load it up with explosives and ram it into the statue of liberty. (After which, of course, we should obliterate mecca and medina).

[quietolong]

Well here you go. A new opportunity. Buy the New Jersey class Battle ships. Turn them into luxury cruise ships and there you go!

[No Truce With Kings]

". Launch all boats and planes in a single coordinated kamikaze attack. Each boat/plane can easily carry a ton of explosives. Even if the carrier is expecting trouble, the short engagement range and large numbers of attackers could overload the defenses. Even if 90 out of a hundred attackers are destroyed, enough would get through to at least seriously damage the carrier. Remember, the Cole was nearly sunk by ONE such suicide attacker."

Ah. . . Dem jihadists are gonna make the acquaintance of Mr. Phalanx in pretty short order. For even one of the bad guys to hit a carrier all of them would need high-speed craft -- like cigarette boats. Dhows and fishing boats are not going to be able to even catch up to a carrier, and even if they could, it takes a long time to cover two nautical miles at 8-10 knots.

This assumes that a collection of 100 small craft clustered at a choke point does not attract attention beforehand -- either through increased chatter (it takes a lot of coordination to get 200-400 terrorists together) or simply noticing an odd assemblage of boats at a strait. If they are noticed, well, then the destroyer screen goes in first, supported by gunship helicopters, and in no time you have a nice collection of matchsticks and dead terrorists.

But let's assume our navy is asleep (pretty big assumption that), and they do not realize that dey gots trouble until they see the bows of the jihadists. Let's further assume that they have a collection of 150 cigarette boats, each with 300 pounds of explosive (mmmm we have now given them 22.5 TONS of explosive). Lets say three of that 150 actually make contact with a fleet carrier and pull the trigger. The boat goes boom and the carrier. . . the carrier most likely sails on like nothing happened.

The Cole displaced 8500 tons. Our SMALLEST carrier displaces TEN TIMES that. The Nimitz class displaces 104,000 tons. They put an armor belt on those puppies, too.

300 pounds of explosive is the equivalent of a 9.2" shell. Well, not quite, because a 9.2" shell comes in at near supersonic speeds, which adds to the kinetic energy. Our 300 pound bomb comes in at maybe 50 knots. It hits at the waterline, and may not even penetrate.

Let's say it is a good day, and the explosive penetrates. How much damage is done? Probably little. Most of the force of the explosion would be vented away from the ship, because that is the path of least resistance. So, it would have the impact of a small WWI torpedo -- 18" or 17" inch. Maybe.

During WWII the Saratoga -- a ship half the size of a modern carrier -- got pegged with three Long Lance torpedos. The Long Lance had a 2000 pound warhead. The Sara made it back to port under its own power.

Best case for the jihadists against modern ships with USN damage control is minor flooding of a few compartments. Casualties would be no more than dozens, including minor injuries. It would be a dockyard repair job (because some of the damage is underwater, but I doubt the repairs would need to be done immediately -- field repairs could keep the carrier in theater if it were needed.

It's never a good idea to underestimate your enemy, but George C. McClellen back in the Civil War proved that it's an equally bad idea to overestimate their capabilities. If they want to target carriers instead of cruise ships -- bring 'em on.

[speekinout]

If the shipping business wanted to protect lives and assets they could sail in convoys

I don't think so. Most vacation destinations can't handle more than the number of cruisers they already get. And if the cruise lines had to pay for military escorts for each ship, the cost of a cruise would be out of sight.

IMO, the only thing we can really do is what Pres. Bush is doing - eliminate terrorists on their territory.

[DarthMaulrulesok]

If memory serves me correctly, 1 18" torpedo delivered by what was essentially a world war one era biplane crippled the Bismarck. If 15 rather than 3 of our theoretical 150 boat kamikaze terror navy make it through the Phalanxes, the helicopters, destroyers, etc., and aim for the stern they might just cripple a carrier. What a tremendous propaganda victory that would make for the bad guys.

Don't get me wrong. I am NOT saying we should be paralyzed by fear, just that we need to consider even the improbable attacks.

[No Truce With Kings]

"If memory serves me correctly, 1 18" torpedo delivered by what was essentially a world war one era biplane crippled the Bismarck."

Oooohh! Get me started on a topic I know something about!

The Bismarcks were a wretched design. They were virtually unsinkable -- but at the expense of being easy to disable. Two examples:

(1) To reduce the number passages through the main armor citadel major communications lines ran on top of the armored deck. The result? If the ship got hit by several salvos of heavy shells, it could steam and fire unhindered, (because the citadel would not have been penetrated) but its ability to hit a target would have dropped to almost nothing, as the shell hits would have severed communications between the turrets and fire control (both radar and optical). In the Battle of the Denmark Straight -- where the Bismarck was initially unhit, it was able to target first Hood (and destroy it) and then Prince Of Wales) within the first few salvoes. However at the final battle with Duke of York and Nelson, after getting smacked a few times by the DoY, the Bismarck failed to get any significant hits, allowing the British to close and destroy her.

(2) That torpedo hit one rudder, on a ship with three rudders and four propellers. Yet the Bismarck was unsteerable after that one hit. Huh? You cannot steer with engines alone, with four shafts? That is either a very lubberly crew or a truly bad design.

I really get floored by the assumption (not made by you, but made by many of my old wargaming buds) of superior Nazi engineering. Their surface warships managed an execrable record, basically due to design shortcomings. Their tanks were initially weaker than their opponents, and even when they came up with the Tigers, extremely unreliable. While they had some excellent aircraft, they were virtually hand-made, limiting production, and making them difficult to maintain. So, I don't really think what happened to a German warship -- whose reputation was more sizzle than steak -- should worry anyone.

As I recall, American carriers have four screws and four rudders (one behind each screw). This gives redundancy. They also have bow thrusters.

"Don't get me wrong. I am NOT saying we should be paralyzed by fear, just that we need to consider even the improbable attacks."

I think we are saying the same thing. But my point is to consider the most improbable attack, then show what the likely outcome will be. Yeah, every once in a while the Little Sisters of Charity are going to have a very good day and the University of Michigan is going to have a very bad day, and Michigan will lose a football game to the Little Sisters of Charity, but you are going to go broke betting that way.

[DarthMaulrulesok]

Well...granted the Bismarck and Tirpitz were not super ships. Just to play devil's advocate, I will point out the Bismarck took on a good chunk of the British home fleet (they pitted 2 carriers, 3 first line battleships and a battle cruiser plus numerous heavy cruisers, destroyers, etc.) to hunt down ONE ship. Even with all that, it could have gone the other way. Our defective design:
Destroyed England's most powerful battle cruiser
Defeated the Prince of Wales (but didn't sink her - first mistake)
Shrugged off a torpedo strike from Victorious
Slipped away from all searchers for awhile
Got that one hit from a torpedo thanks to Ark Royal
Stood off a squadron of destroyers
And was finally cornered by destroyers, cruisers, Rodney and Duke of York, fought and lost.
Would any 1941 Battleship have done better? I agree the design had serious problems, but the real problem was that Bismarck had to fight alone because there were only 2 battleships and 2 battle cruisers in the entire fleet!

Germany's real naval problem was fighting a war before they were ready. They could only sortied one or two ships at a time, 3 at the most. (I think their best success with surface raiders was when the Scharnhorst, Geniesau and Hipper were out on raiding cruises at the same time. Those successes were never repeated. To have had any realistic chance of winning a naval war they would have needed a much bigger fleet, and a lot more resources especially fuel. (And having unreliable torpedoes in 1939-40 really hurt them.)

Despite all the problems you pointed out, they did astonishingly well for a long time. Yes, they were readily out produced (and yes, the tanks they used against France were in fact inferior to the French tanks they faced - yet they won in 6 weeks.)

Sorry to go off topic - military history is a bit of a hobby.

I think we are indeed on agreement on the main, original points. An attack on a carrier is not likely. Within the range of possibility, but not likely to be attempted and if attempted not likely to succeed.

On the other hand, I think an attack on a port, cruise ship, tanker (especially LFG) or other ship is a much more credible threat. Attacks on cruise ships (Achille Lauro) have already happened, and didn't someone (Libya?) mine the red sea back in the 1980's? (I also think at one time Qaddafi wanted a visiting Egyptian sub to torpedo the Queen Mary or some other ship carrying Jews - nothing came of it of course.