Posted on 05/07/2009 10:35:54 AM PDT by nickcarraway
Suspected pirates failed in an effort to attack a U.S. Navy ship off the eastern coast of Somalia. the Navy said Thursday.
Two skiffs, assumed to be pirate vessels, chased the Lewis and Clark, a dry cargo and ammunition ship supporting the Navy's Fifth Fleet, for more than an hour Wednesday before giving up, CNN reported.
During the pursuit, the skiffs fired small arms at the Lewis and Clark and got within one nautical mile before the ship used evasive maneuvers and pulled out of range.
If the Navy ship was carrying munitions, wouldn’t there be a chance a rocket propelled grenade or small arms fire from the pirates might blow up the whole ship?
If so, running away from a fight seems the right thing to do.
The USNS Sacagawea is civilian crewed as well. Still lightly armed, unlike her sister ship the USNS Lewis and Clark.
Yelling civilian doesn't change that, because I already understood that part.
“The might U S Navy is turning and running from pirates in skiffs?”
How many times do I need to say it? A USNS ship has a CIVILIAN CREW.
I lost a friend on the Cole, so I am not among those who have forgotten.
Hence the phrasing - most people in their right mind...
The dangers are much different in the open ocean than they are near land and/or in port. The security requirements, escorts etc. are different when approaching littoral waters.
Try USNS Lewis and Clark. USNS Lewis and Clark and USS Lewis and Clark are two separate vessels.
Any ship could be a “gun” ship.....
All US Naval vessels operating in dangerous waters should have some mounted guns and crew that could operate them.....
There is allot we don't know about this incident. What orders the Captain had. If any weapons were in its armory. How far away was the nearest combat vessel? And why aren't our combat vessels in a location where they can respond to incidents quickly? And what are the standing orders from the Commander and Chief?
I was in the Navy during the time Qaddafi decided to extend the coastal claims of Libya to the waters where American naval maneuvers were conducted. Jimmy Carter meekly rescheduled our maneuvers to stay outside disputed Gulf of Sidra, ordering us to not cross Qaddafi's line. True to form, Carter failed to confront Qaddafi over the issue even after a siege on the American embassy in Tripoli in 1979.
Within months after taking office, Ronald Reagan took a stand. He made it clear that American maneuvers in the Gulf of Sidra would proceed as they always had before Carter. Anticipating trouble, Reagan was asked by the Joint Chiefs what American pilots do if attacked? Would Reagan's orders allow for “hot pursuit”? Reagan's answer – “All the way into the hanger.” You know the rest of the story.
Thats the kind of leadership we need back in Washington, and its not there. That is where the cowards are.
Class and type: Lewis and Clark-class cargo ship
Displacement: 41,000 tons (41,700 t)
Length: 689 ft (210 m)
Beam: 105.6 ft (32.2 m)
Draft: 29.9 ft (9.1 m)
Propulsion: Integrated propulsion and ship service electrical system, with generation at 6.6 kV by FM/MAN B&W diesel generators; one fixed pitch propeller; bow thruster
Speed: 20 knots (37 km/h)
Cowards!
Ballsy - attack a USNS ship? One would think such vessels would be an excellent trial platform for ship mounted non-lethals, if such things exist. Problem is probably range. Your non-lethals may not have the effective range to deal with RPG’s and 50’s.
Another thing you might try would be smaller versions of drones. They are developing some sweet new smaller-form factor missile types that ride better on smaller drones.
Another surprising sort of thing: We used to operate these ships that had large dirigibles on tethers. On the dirigibles were radar. Around the dirigibles were surface assets and guard ships. The guard ships protected the radar asset. The other surface assets were used to pursue vessels of interest.
A combination of one of these radar ships, a helicopter carrier, and some patrol boats and you have an end to piracy off of Somalia. There’s about 700 to 800 miles of Somalian coastline in the Gulf of Aden. Not impossible to bottle up. Air assets can make quick work of the distance, and they’ve got enough firepower to give bad guys a moment of pause, even if you don’t want to kill them with it.
Not going to happen.
With all that ammo on board? McGyver + Swiss Army Knife = Lots of dead pirates.
Back in the late 1960’s and early 70’s ammunition ships along with the oilers and supply ships were actually USS Navy ships and were armed. To bad we now contract those services out.
yeah, they ran away... That is how the media spins it. However, evasive maneuvering isn’t exactly running in cowardice. A supply ship is not supposed to be a combatant, so it doesn’t fight back because it really can’t. It isn’t equipped to return fire or anything else. That’s why you typically see these ships within a battle group.
No, that's what the enemy will take from it.
A supply ship is not supposed to be a combatant, so it doesn’t fight back because it really can’t.
Lame excuse. Are you telling me that supply ships didn't even have a .50 cal in WWII???
It isn’t equipped to return fire or anything else. That’s why you typically see these ships within a battle group.
No, it's because of an idiotic UN Treaty.
The OBAMA DOCTRINE: Our Navy SHOULD run away from Somali pirates. That way, no one gets hurt. We ESPECIALLY don’t want AFRICAN MUSLIMS to be killed, wounded or captured. A successful operation.
US Navy runs from two pirate skiffs??
Surely, that is simply not possible. The Lewis and Clark has to be French.
Yes, thus my comment that there haven't been any Franklin-class subs in service for years. Are we having some kind of trouble communicating here?
Got it now?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.