Skip to comments.U.S. Navy Ship Outruns Pursuing Pirates
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)
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 doesnt fight back because it really cant.
Lame excuse. Are you telling me that supply ships didn't even have a .50 cal in WWII???
It isnt equipped to return fire or anything else. Thats 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?
I am amazed at the pathetic excuses for this being offered on this thread. Not armed? How expensive would it be to outfit it with about four MaDeuces? Not a combat vessel? Who, in their right mind, would consider engaging a couple of ragtag pirate boats combat?
USS Lewis & Clark was decommissioned long ago.
How does one keep up with such things??
The Lewis and Clark along with several other names explores
are the name of these new Sealift command supply ships.
The are built here in San Diego
I don’t think the Navy gives any small arms familiarization to sailors these days...heck, I was on Swift Boats in Nam and spent a week at Pendleton doing small arms fam...if it wasn’t for that I would not have touched a small arm, except for a .45 ACP which we carried when on quarterdeck watch...which was empty.
Even with some pintle-mounted .50s there’s really no point in risking an engagement if you don’t have to have one. There are places on any ship where a really lucky RPG shot can do some damage.
I don’t have a problem with this ships’ actions.
1st point: The ship is DEFINED as a U.S. Naval Vessel in the article - and is described as "a dry cargo and ammunition ship supporting the Navy's Fifth Fleet".
2nd point: The ship was attacked in an area the Navy HAD to know was subject to pirate attacks by African Muslims -- since it's been in all the papers. < /sarcasm>
An overwhelming majority of "African Muslim" pirates are black...
3rd point: One would assume our military forces NEEDED the "dry cargo and ammunition" or they wouldn't have shipped it half way around the world..
4th point: The U.S. Navy must have something in their Mission Statement and ROE that requires them to practice "Force Protection", using lethal force if threatened......
Military supply lines - INCLUDING merchant ships on the high seas carrying war material, comes under that mandate.
5th point: I haven't already forgotten that our black poseur of a President - ordered the Navy to stand down when an American Captain was held by pirates a short time ago, until "his folks - the FBI arrived to negotiate"....
Why did this black President feel the FBI needed to be involved in dealing with black pirates on the high seas?
6th point: Since nearly 97% of blacks in America voted for and celebrate the first black President, the media hails him as the black messiah who is the smartest man to ever serve as President (even though NONE of them or us has seen ANY DOCUMENTATION to substantiate that claim) and the President himself never misses an opportunity to call attention to his uniqueness as a black President -- I find it a simple matter of logic to frame criticism of his actions as a black President...
Finally - one can't help but wonder if our current President would behave as he has against Black African Muslim pirates, if he was not himself a black who celebrates his African roots and was born to a Muslim father, adopted by a Muslim father, personally stated his familiarity and admiration for aspects of Islam and some suspect is STILL a Muslim.....
If it's racist to question Obama's history, truthfulness, intellect, loyalty, anti American friendships, anti American behavior and general deportment as a congenital liar and narcissist -- then the term racist has been redefined to describe one who refuses to drink the politically correct Kool-Aid.
How far would you run to hide?
When do you stand and fight against bastards who think you’re fair game to rob, rape or kill?
Do you avoid a fight with them NOW, allowing them to become even stronger and more dangerous — to threaten your children or grandchildren?
Our “civilization” has become far to “civilized” to survive for long......
Earlier in this thread - I made the point that this is occurring under a black African President - whom some suspect of STILL having Muslim sympathies....
I was called a racist....
That is the level to which critical discourse has declined in this forum..... We have the WRONG President to deal with the current threats to our Republic -- for economic to energy independence or national security....
Waaah. Then 20mm, or whatever it takes. My point is that at no time in WWII would we have been so stupid. We are virtually assuring that the Muzzie pirates will feel safe doing exactly what you needlessly fear by completely disarming supply ships and ordering them to avoid all confrontation. Such behavior places the time and place of a real attack at the enemy's discretion with virtually guaranteed substantial loss of life. Best that they not know what we are going to do and force them to maintain a safe distance.
You got ammunition? Use it!
All Navy ships patrolling those waters should be armed.
Now that was funny.
How hard would it be to arm it with a few 50 Cal’s, and maybe a few Dragon missile launchers?
We ship ammo in unarmed boats??? How about gold? We deserve Obama. We’re stupid
As it has been said over and over again on this thread it is a Navy owned ship BUT operated by civilians. USNS not USS. Like someone else said, a merchant ship with a coat of gray paint.
“If it’s racist to question Obama’s history, truthfulness, intellect, loyalty, anti American friendships, anti American behavior and general deportment as a congenital liar and narcissist — then the term racist has been redefined to describe one who refuses to drink the politically correct Kool-Aid.”
I’ll take your side on that issue!
I reckon you’re right... still... I would make sure my crew was armed and ready to go.
Thanks - but you'd better sandbag your bunker!
I could have guessed that it would be someone from Texas who would have arrived FIRST and ALONE.
Sort of like the quip accredited to a Texas Ranger who showed up at a major riot ALONE. When asked why he came alone, he replied: "One riot, one Ranger".
It's amazing how cowed folks in this forum have become.
Most are afraid and refusing to acknowledge the race issue that IS present in Obama's "administration", because THEY made it so and campaigned upon race as much as anything.
So - I'll judge the results as reflective of the race that supported him at nearly 100%...and scrutinize Obama's actions to determine how they are biased toward his race and his radical Leftist bias at the expense of my race and conservative positions.
That is pure survival theology and self defense...
Funny you should mention that. On the Other side of the pond the closed equivalent (navy owned, mostly civilian crew) to the USNS Lewis and Clark is the Royal Fleet Auxiliary
Bet it makes nice holes in waterlines too, at a mile. :-)
I agree - but beware—
Criticism of Obama, the black racist president, implementing EXACTLY the destruction he ascribed to by listening to a “preacher” vomit out the Black Liberation Theology - will get you labeled a racist....
Why would the U.S. Navy run from pirates- shouldn’t it be the other way around?
If the ship was not capable of facing pirates and being able to deal with them effectively- it should not have been traveling without other ships with that capability. Either way this is not good.
If not able to deal with pirates- needs escort that can. With the threat of terrorists and others that wish to do us harm we should not have a Navy ship out there without the means to defend itself.
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.