Events like this sort of validate parts of the CNO’s new maritime strategy, don’t they? This from Military.com
Sailors from the Norfolk-based destroyer James E. Williams boarded a North Korean merchant ship that had been hijacked by pirates off the coast of Somalia, while two other Navy vessels tailed a pirated Japanese ship in the same region.
The Williams, which left Norfolk in July , was about 50 nautical miles from the ship Dai Hong Dan in the Arabian Sea when it received word of the pirate attack, said Lt. John Gay , a spokesman for the Navy’s Central Command in Manama, Bahrain.
The Williams dispatched a helicopter and ordered the pirates to give up their weapons via a bridge-to-bridge radio. The North Korean crew, which had retained control of the steering and engineering spaces, then confronted the pirates and gained back control of the bridge, according to a Navy news release.
Initial reports from the North Korean crew said two pirates were killed and five others captured, the release said.
Soon afterward, the North Korean crew permitted a small party from the Williams to come aboard, Gay said.
Three corpsman, accompanied by armed Sailors and a Williams crew member who spoke Korean, boarded the Dai Hong Dan from a rigid hull inflatable boat. The corpsman assisted wounded crew members and attackers.
Three Koreans were transported to the Williams for medical attention before being returned to their ship, Gay said. The pirates were being held on the Dai Hong Dan.
Hundreds of miles away in the same region, two other Navy ships were tracking a Japanese-owned ship seized by pirates over the weekend, Gay said.
The spokesman said that two “coalition” ships from Combined Task Force 150 had responded to the hijacking of the Golden Mori , a Japanese-owned ship registered in Panama.
Combined Task Force 150, which conducts maritime security operations in the Arabian Sea and Gulf of Aden, includes vessels from the Pakistani, British, French, German and U.S. navies.
Navy officials with knowledge of the incident confirmed that the U.S. destroyers Porter and Arleigh Burke, both based in Norfolk, responded to the Golden Mori’s distress call.
One of the responding ships fired warning shots in front of the Golden Mori.
It also aimed disabling shots at two skiffs — the boats the pirates used to approach the ship — towed behind the Golden Mori. The skiffs caught fire and sank, Gay said.
Gay said coalition crew members have observed men carrying small arms aboard the bridge of the ship, which was hijacked in the Gulf of Aden, a critical body of water between Yemen, Djibouti and Somalia that links the Red and Arabian seas.
After the hijacking, the Golden Mori sailed 380 miles south and remained off Somalia’s coast, Gay said.
The article also rolls out the duty critic (it wasn’t my turn):
“Essentially, you don’t want to use a billion dollar DDG [guided missile destroyer] to suppress pirates,” [Robert Work, a retired Marine officer and analyst at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments in Washington] said. “That’s a mission for a much smaller ship. But we have a lot of ships in that area because of ongoing operations in the Horn of Africa. These are ships designed for high-end war fighting, not chasing pirates.”
Hey, not every day’s a missile day. Plus, as we say in the fighter business, a kill’s a kill, right?
Kudos to our blackshoe brethren here.
(Official U.S. Navy photo showing a pirate ship headed for Davy Jones’ locker.)
– Ward
The ship cost a billion dollars whether they use it for that or not. If it’s just going to be hanging around otherwise, how about putting it to some use?
Let’s apply the same logic to this as has recently been applied to the Air Force on these pages. Pirates have been operating in this area for years. The only reason why this is happening now is that this is a show of force designed to show Congress that the Navy still needs a robust budget. The Navy is increasing irrelevant in a war against terrorists and insurgents.
Actually, I don’t believe a word that I just wrote. I’m proud of our Navy sailors and quite frankly I don’t care that a billion dollar DDG did the job. It shows their flexibility just like strike munitions or ISR sensors on an F-22.
So, let’s show a little respect for each of the services, OK?
Fair enough, Doc. It’s just that some of us are burdened by a lifetime of hooting on the Air Force.
Sounds like a job for the PC’s, but the US doesn’t have that many.
Hey, what about frigates?
Nothing wrong with a little good natured ribbing between rivals especially during football season (for Air Force, there’s always next year). But, getting rid of the Air Force is going a little overboard.
Cheers.
Being an ex “Tincan” sailor (pre-FFG), I say target practice is always good for units that have to stay ever alert
This is exactly why we need LCS ships…50 crew plus a platoon of marines…vs 8000+ tons of destroyer and almost 400 crew…
My question is: What is a NORK cargo ship doing there? Where is it going? And what is it carrying? I concur with the above commenter that it is an unlucky pirate that finds himself appealing for mercy from the Great Leader…
I have to agree that stealthiness was not the overrriding priority in this design.
It may be stealthier than the Predator, but the high aspect ratio wing, external weapons load, prop and engine inlet definitely increases it’s RCS.
The long span wing gives it great lift,fuel efficiency and longer range, which translates into higher loiter time and lower cruise and landing speeds. The drawback is cruise and max speed is reduced.
When we have air supremacy over Iraq and Afghanistan, who cares if it is stealthy enough?
It flies high enough to be unseen and unheard from the ground, yet still can perform the mission. For older generation MANPADS that require LOS observation before IR lock-on (e.g., SA-14), this platform is good enough to defeat them.
One other critical factor is icing…at the outset of the predator program, the aircraft could not fly in a wide range of icing conditions and altitudes, greatly decreasing its effectiveness (and availability). The turbo (PT6A?) is more reliable, less maintenance intensive and can allow the reaper to fly above the weather, if necessary.
Not sure if de-icing technology is installed on this version.
Methinks someone posted in the wrong thread.
Chief, I currently made an apples to orange comparison. I don’t expect F-22s to start ASW patrols anytime soon – unless the sub is on the surface, then it’s weapons free!
I was trying to make the point that some can argue that a DDG shouldn’t be chasing pirates because it’s a billion dollar ship. I would argue that a DDG is multi-mission capable and can fight pirates at one end of the spectrum and can take out ballistic missiles in flight at the other end. That’s a good investment.
If someone wants to invest in cheaper patrol vessels, so be it. There’s a place for that. However, recognize that they are severely limited at the more intensive regimes of the warfare spectrum. LCS may provide a decent balance.
As for USAF, our current F-15Cs are limited to air-to-air combat. That’s it. They pretty much were useless after the first week of OIF. The F-22 will dominate in air-to-air but also has some air-to-ground capability with JDAM and SDB plus an ISR capability the current Eagles don’t have.
I want pirate pictures! I expect to see twenty or thirty kids dressed like pirates come to my door this evening and would like to know what the real thing looks like.
Its like the F-22, we have no need for any large war ship right now. But we have them and were using them to good effect. No enemy we face as of right now even has a navy, but we still have multi billion dollar ships because anyday we cold face war with a nation who has a real navy. Id say use them and give the crews real combat experience, ya its not like a real shooting battle but its better than just training. Pirates are a problem and we just destroyed 2, thats 2 less to worry about.
As A tax Payer and an avid sailor I dont’t care If a destroyer or a f-22 or a 688n Sub respond, a mariner in need,whatever Nation,Should be defended.pirates need to die.no exceptions.
Many Yacht’s with family’s are killed every year and that does’nt include the threats to commercial
shipping. I say respond!!!!!!
Maybe if we intervened whenever and whereever we are, regardless of the platform, we would have more repect on the open seas.
If pirates get wind that we select our targets based on size of vessels in the are, then they will use it to there advantage…ya think?
Might be a good time to bring back the Q ships of WWII.
My question is: What is a NORK cargo ship doing there? Where is it going? And what is it carrying?
…um? North Korea is a rather politically insular nation, but they do trade with the outside world, and unless the outside world in question is China or Russia or South Korea, that’s going to have to be trade done on freighters. About 20% of their trade, import and export, is with nations outside the big local markets, so you’d expect the occasional ship to be heading off for a long haul.
(Where were they going? Good question. En route to Europe or the Med?)
Sure, every time you hear about some weird suspicious thing coming out of NK it’s shipborne – but that’s simply because it’s the only way to go. There’s a vast amount of legitimate shipping out there, and it seems rather bizzare to immediately start being suspicious of their motives Just Because They’re North Korean.
Re: Doc75
I apprehend your meaning now and agree.
I suppose that my first principles with these really big ticket procurement items are:
Do we REALLY need it? Do we really need it RIGHT NOW? Are the suppliers capable of delivering it or are they smoking crack? And, what do we have in inventory that can do the job or that can evolve (spiral development)?
We have permitted our procurement weenies, congressional money whores, and the big military suppliers to wag the dog, IMHO. Requirements don’t seem to have their genesis in reality. E.g., the DD(X)/CG(X) “programs” that continually morph from one design to another without ever getting down to HY80 on the ways.
What’s more we discard like last week’s toys lots and lots of things that still have a lot of life left in them and for which Mom & Dad still haven’t finished paying. E.g., the SPRUANCE class and FFG-7s. How many B-52s have we chopped up rather than rebuild/convert to PGM haulers?
We DO get the spiral development right sometimes; the F16 being a sterling example. Here’s a plane that started a simple “John Boyd” bird that flew and fought superbly. Over the decades its evolved into much, much more without losing its soul. I don’t see any reason why we can’t continue to improve the design and expand its capabilities while also building the F22 in smaller numbers.
Ditto other successful programs: the FA18/EA18, DDG51, C17, C130, et al. Some of our most successful weapons have been continuously improved over many decades: AIM9, AIM7, Standard, Harpoon, Tomahawk, etc.
In the end, I think that we have to have the presence of mind to know when our reach exceeds our grasp. It doesn’t mean that we stop growing and extending our reach, but don’t miss a rung on the ladder either.
Cheers,
Chief B.
Re: Size DOES Matter
Some have remarked here that this incident makes the case for smaller vessels. I couldn’t disagree more.
These smaller, smarter, “rightsized” vessels that Big Navy has been peddling are snake oil. I write this based on our experiences with the threats that we and our allies have faced in the last twenty years or so. From STARK to HANIT, the survivability of these vessels came not from whizbang weapons systems but size, construction, valor, and no small measure of luck.
STARK survived the Exocet attack because she was well built and had a crew that wasn’t about to let her go under. Had her crew been manned at the levels the MBAs in the Pentagon think to be right, she’d not likely have had the men to fight the fires.
SAMUEL B. ROBERTS survived for the same reasons a STARK after she struck a mine.
COLE was perilously close to sinking and suffered massive engineering damage. A robust design and valiant crew kept her afloat to fight another day.
HANIT was fornute that the ASM which struck her did so on her stern. An amidship strike surely would have been catastrophic.
The common element here is that all these hits happened when the vessels’ crews “weren’t looking.” Our reliance on active systems to defeat threats before they get to the ship are grand in theory but chock full of holes in practice. It is through these holes that brave young men and women get killed.
In theory, STARK should have splashed both MiGs and sent their drivers straight to hell and her CIWS should have splashed both Exocets. In practice however she was running BECCEs, had her CIWS offline, and Murphy took care of the rest.
In theory, COLE should not have allowed a Splodeydope small boat anywhere near her. In practice however such things were the norm and the idea of the topside sentry giving them anything more than dirty looks was anathema. (Why the hell she was in Aden in the first place is another matter altogether.)
A ship of larger size with substantial armor protection might not have been nearly so affected as were STARK and COLE. The larger crews also enable better damage control and fire fighting teams. In an interdiction role, such as JAMES WILLIAMS found herself in, the larger and more robust vessel need worry very little about a lucky RPG hit and has the crew depth to man VBSS teams.
The LCS now being built has none of these qualities and relies on speed and stealthiness to avoid the one lucking round that will sink it. Her tiny crew would likely not be able to fight fires and flooding AND continue to fight the ship.
For now, the decisions on what to buy and when to buy it seems to be directed by MBAs, JDs, and politicians. I pray however that someday soon we’ll stop trying to function like a business and get on with being the Navy our grandfathers left to us.
Cheers,
Chief B.
Chief, The B-52’s that where chopped up didnt have much life left in them. Further, most where choped up due to arms control treaties. As for the DD-963’s they where always cheap place fillers anyway.
Re: NTV
There may not have been “much life left in them” but there may have been enough to refit and keep them flying as bomb trucks. The treaty with the USSR arguably could have been renegotiated when the USSR went POOF.
As for the SPRUs, I wouldn’t exactly call them “place fillers.” They were a good design that allowed for innovation and development. If we thought there was something obsolete in them we should have replaced or upgraded those things. Decommissioning an entire class of ships in midlife remains unfathomable to me; especially when we do not have replacements for them as yet.
The other bit of this whole mystery is why we feel the need to build entirely new classes of ships, planes, weapons, and systems. We take on enormous risk and cost in developing something that is radically different from its predecessor. During the Cold War it was rational and understandable that staying ahead of the Soviets was a potent deterrent and ultimately a potent weapon in itself.
However, what is the pressing requirement these days for the F22, DDG-1000, CG(X), and what have you that our current range of weaponry can’t handle? Why can’t we extend the production of the F16, restart the F15, build more B1 bombers or even B52s, continue to build DDG51s, etc., etc.?
Surely the cost of restarting the production of an aircraft already in service would be significantly less than working out the myriad bugs in a new one. What improvements could we make in methods and materials that would improve the performance and capabilities of a brand new BUFF?
And we need not beat the dead horse of reactivating the BBs.
Maybe its looking at my graying hair and beard in the morning, but I’ve become rather convinced that new is not always better and that throwing away things just because they’re “old” is unwise.
Cheers,
Chief B.
Re Chief
The Soviets or the Russians wouyld not have allowed the BUFF’s to escape the guillotine if we had tried to renegotiate, they where regarded as nuke carriers and in accordance with reducing the nuke capability needed to go. And like I said they where the pder G and maybe F models with little life left in them. (Remember, they did a lot of low level flying back in the day ,and thus beat the crap out of the airframe).
Yes, the Spuance class where good ships, but they where meant to be bridges from the Sumner/Gearing/Sherman classes that where reaching mass obselecens at the same time. Unfortunatly the Aiegis sytem was not ready for the Spruance and ASW was a pressing need. This resulted in a very capable ASW ship with limited strike and AAW capability. The strike capability was upgraded with the TLAM VLS system. But the ships where reaacing the max weight and where expensive to operate. When it comes time to cut cost it makes sense to get rid of an entire class so that all the logistics disapear as well.
As for developing new systems, we have to develop them for threats that exist now as well as those that are 20 years down the road. Thats what make things hard, determineing what the threat will be in 20 years.
AS for keeping some of our weapons in production, I think its a good idea, but with respect to airplanes, I think that LO capability is so important that I think we need to focus on building F-22’s/F-35’s and stay away from building F-15’s/16’s/18’s.
Also, its impractiple to restart production of aircraft one the lines have been shut down, all the machines have been reused for other aircraft and most of the knowldge is lost as well. While we could do it the cost would be significnt, even if mission/requirment creep didnt happen.