Hot Air » Blog Archive » Video: About that incident with the Iranian ships

Video: About that incident with the Iranian ships

posted at 4:57 pm on January 9, 2008 by Bryan
Send to a Friend | Share on Facebook | printer-friendly

Rep. Joe Sestak (D-PA), who’s a retired Vice Admiral, says the Navy’s response to the Iranian provocation in the Straits of Hormuz over the weekend was the right response, and was the result of training and restraint. I tend to agree, but thought I’d toss this video out to the squids in the readership to get their take. To me, the boats were clearly trying to provoke a response and may have been trying to create Iran’s own Gulf of Tonkin incident. The timing, coming as it did so close to President Bush’s visit to the Middle East, is no accident. In any case, as long as the boats stayed some distance from the destroyers they were no threat, and if they had gotten close enough to become a threat, the destroyers would have sunk them without much trouble. I have no doubt of that.

But I’m a zoomie, so what do I know?

As things stand, the Iranians have annoyed the French as well as the US. In years past that wouldn’t matter much, but Sarkozy isn’t your average French president. Personally I’d take him over Gordon Brown in a fight any day.

Update: To no one’s surprise, HuffPoster doesn’t buy the US version of the Straits incident. But if you ask him, I’m sure he supports the military. Well, he supports a military.

Update: Mike Goldfarb also takes a look a that HuffPoster’s piffle. I think we can all agree that a record producer’s word ought to carry more weight on a military matter than the Pentagon or a retired admiral. Right?

Update: Very interesting military analysis here. He makes a very good point about being lulled toward complacency by actions like these.

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: « 1 [2]

Prior squid here…yeah, they shoulda nailed those boghammers when they got within the engagement zone…and I doubt the engagement zone only stretched out to about 200 yards.

Frankly, they’re lucky to be alive.

TheGoblinKing on January 9, 2008 at 9:09 PM

funny choice of words, I just read that the NSA declasified reports saying the gulf on tonkin incident was staged

offroadaz on January 9, 2008 at 5:16 PM

Meh, nice moonbat site you visit there! I could only stand to look at the site long enough to read the ridiculous article you linked to, I didn’t want to linger too long as I could feel my brain turning to mush!

I also saw a request to “wear orange to protest the Gitmo atrocity” on that garbage site you visit….what a bunch of BS!

From the Naval footage of the incident it was obvious what the Iranian’s were doing! This is no “gulf of tonkin” and to make any comparison regardless if you believe the gulf of tonkin incident to be a hoax by the US or not (which I don’t) this situation is cleary different and the Iranian’s were clearly provoking a fight!

I just wish we had given them what they wanted, but alas they and all the terrorists like them ran like cowards when it became clear their bluff was about to be called! They’re like a drunk at a bar that thinks they’re a bad azz but in reality they’re only drunk…

Offroadaz you’re obviously a twoofer or some hybrid of a twoofer, does it hurt when you have to give up your mind and common sense to become a twoofer…a mind is a terrible thing to waste!

Also, is the AZ at the end of your name because you live in Arizona? I hope not because if you are from AZ I just became less proud of my State!

Liberty or Death on January 9, 2008 at 9:10 PM

JeffWeimer on January 9, 2008 at 6:47 PM

Thank you very much for the info. The ROE are the ROE but 200 meters seems a little close. Maybe they should increase it to whatever range is available if a threat is made. 200 meters for a non-threatening vehicle is one thing. A LOT MORE than 200 meters to someone who says they are going to blow you up would be grounds for defensive action.

Thanks for the info though. I do love facts.

We do have specific ranges that are designated for this sort of thing, I can’t say what hey are, but this point-counterpoint we just fit into - regardless of range - is just what happens, and is how we have designed the ROE to operate - we don’t want to fire UNLESS WE HAVE TO - that’s the idea - we’re the stable, good guys. 200 meters is over 600 feet - trust me, we can take them in this situation, no sweat. Best part, THEY KNOW IT.

JeffWeimer on January 9, 2008 at 9:18 PM

That was the right response from the United States navy,
there is absolutely no question in my mind those gunboats
were going to be toast if they strayed any further.

The USS Cole was hit by suicidal nutjobs,from what I
understand there was a message that all ships beaware
of possible trouble,why they weren’t on alert,I don’t know.

I watched the documentary on the USS Vincent,the United
States navy was not at fault,but a chain of events brought
the airliner to disaster,one of which was the Iranian airforce used the civilian airport,with both aircraft on
the runway,it’s unfortunate the airliner was painted with
the Irainian F-14 signature,and it wasn’t that long after
the USS Stark incident!

canopfor on January 9, 2008 at 9:22 PM

First of all, I think Rep. Sestak said a little too much in his explanation. Second, Romeo is correct about the Silkworms launchers being too close for comfort. If we choose to engage, we’ll need a little more distance from the shore. Air cover during the passage to target the missile launchers is a prudent precaution, and I would be surprised if that coverage wasn’t present during this event. One thing to keep in mind, most of our F-15 fleet (with it’s anti-cruise missile capability) is still grounded.

Zorro on January 9, 2008 at 9:32 PM

Frankly, they’re lucky to be alive.

They always are. As I’ve stated throughout this thread their reliance on luck (i.e. calculation) is uncanny. Maybe the Ayatollahs go around with rabbit’s foot trinkets around their necks. Or maybe they know exactly what they’re doing and its a conscious strategy. Its worth thinking about.

aengus on January 9, 2008 at 9:39 PM

JeffWeimer has it right.

Got off Active Duty just about a year ago after 6 years as an Officer. Aside from the fact that specific declination angles for the revamped CIWS and the actual protection zone distances and responses are classified, I can also assure you that the sailors and ships acted IAW standing ROE for Straits of Hormuz transit.

Rest assured that the Iranians know it as well. Provocative as they may be, they’re not fools. I had a similar experience in 2003 during the start of the war with speedboats in the Straits of Bab al-Mandeb, arguably a scarier chokepoint. Swarm tactics, response testing, etc. It is nerve-wracking, but be sure that today’s Navy is prepared for these tactics in ways they weren’t in 2001.

Someone mentioned watchbills. I’m sure some ships do it differently, but on the Cape St. George (same class as the Port Royal) in 2003, we manned up at a modified General Quarters for Hormuz. That means all the right people are in all the right places.

Mercutio on January 9, 2008 at 9:40 PM

Amen. We don’t go into that choke point without being ready for ANYTHING. Despite what they said, this video is 100% consistent with would/should happen. I hope it doesn’t get closer than this, no one wants to be part of an international incident.

The Iranians aren’t STUPID, they know that part of the world at least as well as we do. It’s a dance, they decided to get a bit close, but not too much. We’ve smacked them on the nose (HARD) before and we’ll do it again, just not this time.

OK, embarrassing Iranian moment for me (and I’ll catch s**t from Mercutio). I got overflown by the P-3. I didn’t see him. Of course, neither did the two Aegis boats he flew before me. But I digress.
Jeff

JeffWeimer on January 9, 2008 at 10:00 PM

AllahP, dude, put this in ‘top pics’

It deserves its.

JeffWeimer on January 9, 2008 at 10:22 PM

Sheesh, browser crashed again screw firefox 3!

This thread deserves upgrade to top picks, seriously!

JeffWeimer on January 9, 2008 at 10:32 PM

~~AllahP~~ Bryan, dude, put this in ‘top pics’

It deserves its.

JeffWeimer on January 9, 2008 at 10:22 PM

Fixed.

FloatingRock on January 9, 2008 at 11:52 PM

I’m no squid but you are.

New Navy motto:

Shoot first ask questions later, Remember the Cole!

Captain America on January 10, 2008 at 12:16 AM

Go listen to Neptunus Lex and CDR Salamander. Their comments (and the guys to which they link) are from people who have made decisions in that kind of situation. You want to know from what the officers think? Ask the navy milbloggers.

Chap on January 10, 2008 at 3:42 AM

Proposal for all the naval intelligence on this site:

How about a passive defense system made up of a submerged tree trunk (just beneath the surface) or a milspec equivalent, towed about, I don’t know, say 200 meters aft?

Those little toy boats would hit it going around the stern and have a nice surprise at 60 kts.

Feasible??? Maybe it will work only once, but I would love to see the video of the collision. Maybe it might make Extreme Sports on cable.

fred5678 on January 10, 2008 at 6:30 AM

fred5678 on January 10, 2008 at 6:30 AM

Not a good idea. Most obviously because if the formation has to make a sudden turn (say, to avoid a head-on meeting with one or more “speeders” coming in on their bows) there’s entirely too good a chance that another ship in the formation, or even the ship “streaming” the tow itself, would over-run the “tail”, with unfortunate consequences for bow sonardomes, midships stabilizers, aft skegs, shafts, screws, rudders, and/or anything else below the waterline. The “Nixie” sonic towed anti-torpedo decoy had to be used with care in confined waters for exactly this reason.

My principal concern with these “stunts” is twofold;

1. The obvious chances of a suicide ramming attack with an explosive-filled boat (which the Navy is fully prepared for);

2. The possibility of the “speeders” or (in darkness) other boats lying doggo dropping combat swimmers ahead of a formation to conduct a personal “homicide bomb” attack with limpet mines below the waterline.

The first is dealt with appropriately by the threat, or use, of naval gunfire. The second is more a job for naval “special operations”, if you take my meaning. (I prefer not to be more specific, and I suspect Senior Chief Weimer would prefer I weren’t, either.)

cheers

eon

eon on January 10, 2008 at 7:43 AM

I was suprised Fox Network ran this Congresman’s opinion without pointing out how radical he is. Having served in the military I tend to give other military men the benefit of the doubt. However, after watching what he said I did a little research and found this guy is really quite a far left, pro-islamic fellow.

All I can think of is that with most people calling for blowing the little buggers out of the water the producers looked hard till they found somebody with a contrary opinion in the name of balance.

SilntThnkr on January 10, 2008 at 8:53 AM

I dont think those were boghammers! Those were just speed boats. BIG BIG difference. No one at sea uses meters too. Yards or cables but never meters.