Home » Air » MBDA Missile Could Counter Swarm Boats

MBDA Missile Could Counter Swarm Boats

by Mike Hoffman on July 12, 2012

FARNBOROUGH, England — MBDA thinks it has an answer to counter the threat of swarm boats that have concerned naval learders since small Iranian attack boats surrounded U.S. ships in the Arabian Gulf in 2008.

British Tornado GR4s have carried the Brimstone missile in Afghanistan and Libya using it to target fast moving vehicles and minimize collateral damage on sensitive stationary targets. MBDA plans to use that same missile on maritime targets to include small speed boats.

MBDA originally built the Brimstone to kill tanks and large armor formations. In 2008, MBDA  introduced a dual version millimetric wave/semi-active laser to put a man in the loop and provide an extra layer of protection from killing civilians in counterinsurgency wars like Iraq and Afghanistan.

Frank Morgan, an official with MBDA, said here at Farnborough International Airshow the company wants to remove the semi-active laser and focus the Brimstone on tracking small attack boats. The millimeter wave seeker specializes in tracking small moving targets. This year, a Tornado dropped a maritime version of the Brimstone that blew up a 6 meter inflatable boat.

Tracking a naval target is often tougher than a land one because of harsher weather and waves, Morgan said. MBDA has plans for future tests coming soon to fine tune the seeker and offer it to potential customers. The British Royal Air Force and Saudi Arabia are the two countries who carry Brimstone missiles on their aircraft.

“This is a natural progression for Brimstone as MBDA has wanted to expand the role of [the missile],” Morgan said.

Share |

{ 92 comments… read them below or add one }

blight_ July 12, 2012 at 10:17 am

And if you buy enough, you bring the price down.

How does this stack against the Griffin?

Reply

FormerDirtDart July 12, 2012 at 5:11 pm

Its bigger, faster, and can attack a moving target without continuous lasing. Seems to be similar to the Longbow Hellfire, but with better range

Reply

duuude July 12, 2012 at 10:57 am

It would be interesting to see F-18s armed with this weapon and wiping out the Iranian navy in one sortie.

Reply

STemplar July 12, 2012 at 11:00 am

JDAMs are probably cheaper and since they are parked dock side most of the time, easier.

Reply

SJE July 12, 2012 at 1:24 pm

I would have thought a JDAM was not the optimal weapon against a small speedboat?

Reply

LeoC July 16, 2012 at 11:23 am

STemplar's comment was to bomb them at the docks where they would be clustered together (stationary target). Once the Iranian boats scatter, they must be attacked individually on-the-go. What is needed is a small (inexpensive) weapon that can handle a fast moving boat in a swarm attack.

Reply

Greensborovet July 21, 2012 at 7:27 pm

JDAMs are too dam slow.

Reply

Anonymous July 12, 2012 at 11:29 am

It would be less interesting to just not engage in another war.

Reply

True, except July 12, 2012 at 12:41 pm

It would be less interesting, but i would be more interested in not going to war. I still want the big stick; just not interested in always swinging it.

Reply

Brown July 12, 2012 at 1:24 pm

And it will be even more interesting when you realize that you just say stupid sh*t.

Reply

tony August 31, 2012 at 1:26 am

I am no expert by any stretch of the imagination , but I would worry much more about a sustained swarm attack of sunburn missiles with many dummies mixed in to make one waste the limited amount of brimstone missiles and American analogs. Take the gun from the A10 warthog and put multiple guns on a bigger platform and us that to wipe out a swarm of 100 500 or more.

Reply

vok July 12, 2012 at 11:02 am

Brimstone is basically enhanced Hellfire, with longer range and a tri-mode seeker. It's a good OTS candidate for JAGM. Too bad US won’t consider it.

Reply

BlackOwl18E July 12, 2012 at 1:32 pm

We considered it. We just couldn't afford it.

Reply

vok July 12, 2012 at 2:10 pm

How so? Unlike JAGM, Brimstone is a mature design with actual combat record already under its wing. As such you won’t have worry about potential acquisition fiasco. Each year US spends hundreds of millions dollars buying significant amount of Hellfire missiles. Can we at least divert a portion of that budget for a much better weapon?

Reply

BlackOwl18E July 12, 2012 at 3:28 pm

Nope. During that round of defense cuts a large portion of them were made to keep funding for the F-35 and LCS. JAGM was one of those cuts.

Reply

Marauder2048 July 13, 2012 at 5:08 am

Nope. JAGM lives on as EMD. My understanding is that they will likely initially retrofit hellfire missiles with the new tri-mode seeker being developed for SBD II. And since when does Brimstone have a tri-mode seeker? Really, Brimstone is too expensive for use against swarms; the Griffin or the US Navy's Spike missile are vastly cheaper, lighter and can be used en-masse.

Chops July 12, 2012 at 11:10 am

I wonder how effective the R2D2 [CIWS ] is against a swarm of boats,anyone know?

Reply

Riceball July 12, 2012 at 11:14 am

The problem with a CIWS is range, you have to allow the boats to get in relatively close before a CIWS is effective. What the Navy is looking for is something that gives them stand off capability so they can take the boats out before they come close enough to become a real threat.

Reply

Tonytitan July 12, 2012 at 11:15 am

I would imagine that it would depend on the size of the swarm, seeing as how CWIS could suffer from barrel overheating if it had to shoot at too many targets.

Reply

@aklaft July 12, 2012 at 11:17 am

Doesn't matter, they are being removed

Reply

STemplar July 12, 2012 at 12:09 pm

Better to shoot at them with missiles on choppers before they get that close, or if things have gone poopie just bomb them in port. These speed boats are just that, they don't have any endurance, they can't keep them out on the water for days on end.

Reply

adam July 12, 2012 at 3:15 pm

assuming you know that they are comming and you have permission to fire when thay are far away. with the Rules Of Engagment are usualy so strict, you can "see the whites of their eyes" before you can shoot them. so a mini VLS shooting helfire, brimstone or griffen would be good, but i would not give up my phalanx (the USNs gun CWIS) or 57mm auto cannon, or lots and lots of crew served weapons.

Reply

Mat July 12, 2012 at 12:49 pm

90% of iranian speedboats are little more than sporting boats armed with small arms , unguided rockets and guided antitank missles .These are more or less cannonfoder , on the other hand they have some small missle armed patrol boats that can engage targets at longer range 10-15 miles and some of these missles have big enough warhead to threaten even the largest ships. These are the ones that are a real threat , the problem you can have a turkeyshoot but it takes only one or two of these to make it trough to inflicts serious damage ,remember hormuz straight is only cca 20 miles wide at its narrowest . Which means even old 60's generation land based antiship missles can cover it.

Reply

Chops July 12, 2012 at 11:29 am

Would'nt it be great if the A10 was carrier capable for this kind of job?

Reply

orly? July 12, 2012 at 1:00 pm

For the space of one A10, you can probably have two F/A jets.

Space and flexibility are key.

Reply

Chops July 12, 2012 at 1:10 pm

True,but if the A10 had been designed for carrier ops I'm sure it would have foldable wings.

Reply

orly? July 12, 2012 at 3:20 pm

Why would you need a naval A10 in a modern navy?

Reply

Chops July 12, 2012 at 4:18 pm

Slower, more durable, and very heavily armed–perfect for a swarm of small attack boats.

blight_ July 13, 2012 at 2:09 am

Not enough space on a carrier to devote to a aircraft designed exclusively to engage small boats. Wouldn't send an A-10 against a ship with CIWS or RAM…yeech!

Reply

FormerDirtDart July 13, 2012 at 8:53 am

Would you send any airplane directly against a ship with CIWS or RAM? That counter argument doesn't hold a lot of weight.
Now, not that I'm supporting magical "what if" wonder/antiquated long out of production weapons (Spads, Mustangs, hover board bound howitzers….on, and on, and on)

Reply

orly? July 13, 2012 at 9:53 am

In Anti-Ship warfare, you fire ASM's several miles away from the target, not fly slowly towards it and strafe.

Strafing in this day and age against a modern enemy would be a tactic of last resort, right next to kamikazi attacks.

I would send anything flying with relatively high speed.

If you want to do old fashioned strafing against a modern ship/formation, please get do it yourself.

Reply

FormerDirtDart July 13, 2012 at 9:58 am

Why the hell are you replying to me? How did you get that I advocate strafing runs from my comment?

Chops July 13, 2012 at 5:35 pm

Some of these fanatics are strapping bombs to themselves and detonating them in crowds of people—what makes you think they wouldn't do that with a heavily armed speedboat?

tony August 31, 2012 at 1:27 am

marry to the Osprey

Reply

vok July 12, 2012 at 11:46 am

Did the Navy ever considered adopting a navalized GMLRS as viable anti-ship weapon? Lockheed internally funded development adds a terminal seeker for dealing with moving land or maritime targets, and foldable wing extends missile range beyond 60 miles. Small to medium sized enemy surface combatants all covered. That would be a nice toy to have on chronically under gunned LCS.

Reply

STemplar July 12, 2012 at 12:11 pm

I'm sure the USN is considering a lot of stuff since NLOS went belly up. Here's hoping they pick something that works and doesn't cost a fortune.

Reply

Chuck July 13, 2012 at 6:40 am

Actually, a land based anti-ship GMLRS would be more likely, assuming we were interested in coastal defense.

Reply

El Sid July 13, 2012 at 11:37 am

Lots of people have looked at navalising GMLRS over the years – the Germans did a lot of work on it but there were just too many problems – most notably with the corrosive exhaust. Some Soviet 'phibs had a BM-21 launcher, not quite on the same level of sophistication though.

If you're wanting something light and navalised then the obvious option is the AMOS 120mm twin mortar found on some Swedish CB90 boats.

Brimstone makes a lot of sense for naval use – in particular the salvo mode intended for massed formations of Russian tanks has obvious applications against boat swarms. A pair of Tornado launched a salvo of 22 Brimstones against an armoured column in Libya – they do all the clever stuff of prioritising targets, and obviously mmW radar won't be fooled by smokescreens unlike Griffin.

Reply

BlackOwl18E July 12, 2012 at 1:45 pm

Anyone here remember JAGM? It was supposed to be our equivalent to a Brimstone missile. The F/A-18E/F could carry 12 of them. It was the ideal air-to-ground missile. It got canceled in a round of defense cuts. We should have kept that thing.

Reply

4FingerOfBouron July 12, 2012 at 1:51 pm

BlackOwl18Echo? What is 18E? MOS for sewing machine operator? We all know you love the F18. Alot.Alot alot alot…

Reply

BlackOwl18E July 12, 2012 at 3:40 pm

I love what is useful and ideal for our services. The F-35A is that jet for the USAF. A Harrier III would be that jet for the USMC. The F/A-18E/F is that jet for the USN. I don't love a specific jet. I love the IDEAL jet for the needs of the services. I actually wanted to use 11 or 11A first instead of 18E since it's my favorite number for a reason I will not specify. I used 18E after I found out that 11 and 11A were already taken. Aside from that I also wanted it to be clear that I am the REAL Black Owl since that imposter appeared on that last F-35 article.

Reply

Johnny Ranger July 17, 2012 at 11:25 am

11/11A because you were/are an Army infantry officer?

Reply

Johnny Ranger July 17, 2012 at 11:29 am

11/11A because you were/are an Army infantry officer?

Reply

PolicyWonk July 12, 2012 at 4:02 pm

Vendors love missiles because they are expensive – and hate guns because bullets are really cheap. For defense against small boats – several chain guns will all but boil the ocean – and save money.

Reply

Riceball July 16, 2012 at 1:11 pm

You're forgetting one thing, guns are cheaper than missiles but missiles have a longer range than guns and as in all combat, the further out you can destroy your target the better. This is especially true against a swarm of small boats armed with short ranged weapons, the further out you take them out the more time you have to do so and any that manage to get through your initial ring of defense can still be taken out by your second ring defenses (ie guns) before they get within their own weapons range; you rely solely on guns as your first ring of defense you're down to small arms as your secondary ring and by that time they'd be within range of their own weapons and a Burke costs a whole lot more than a single missile does.

Reply

blight_ July 16, 2012 at 1:24 pm

Guns were more expensive than longbows…and here we are. Though to be fair, guns are cheaper than a knight's plate-mail armor, and they obviously didn't make the cut.

Reply

Lance July 12, 2012 at 4:21 pm

I still think for US forces F-15Es and F/A-18s armed with AGM-65s will do the job as well.

Reply

jsallison July 12, 2012 at 7:31 pm

I guess dusting off 20mm Oerlikons laying around from WWII would just be so not cool.

Reply

Thomas L. Nielsen July 13, 2012 at 1:49 am

And exactly how many small moving targets (or even big moving targets) at 1-2 mile range have you successfully engaged with an Oerlikon? Please tell – as the Ferengi say, we're all ears…

Regards & all,

Thomas L. Nielsen
Luxembourg

Reply

blight_ July 13, 2012 at 2:08 am

And Sopwiths would be even less cool.

That said, it may be time to bring back the Torpedo Boat Destroyer to protect our nations dreadnaughts.

Reply

Chuck July 13, 2012 at 6:44 am

An ATGM launched from a speedboat could provide a good standoff distance that would meke the 29mm not so useful.

Reply

Jack July 13, 2012 at 12:04 am

Isn't Boeing a sub-contractor to the Brimstone missile?

Reply

Jinxsowner July 13, 2012 at 6:09 am

Back in the Falklands war. The British had good luck with thier Harriers with external
20 mm. cannon pods. Mainly against ground targets. The Harriers sound like a practical solution since it it already in service. Harriers can land on a variety of our ships. I quite sure that there are some Marines who would love the opportunity to dispose of some
fast moving challenging targets.

Reply

blight_ July 13, 2012 at 5:57 pm

Helicopters might be more friendly to the deck of a ship.

Reply

Guest July 13, 2012 at 9:14 am

Longbow Block 3 is the fielded solution to this mission. Can fire any type of Hellfire ( laser or MMW), 30mm cannon, or 2.75" rockets (MPSM or flechette are good alternatives for this). These are all weapons classes that are discussed for this mission, and are fully integrated into the airframe. Also equipped with an extended range Fire Control Radar, with a maritime targeting mode. Training: The crews are already trained to deal with multiple small targets. Facilities: The units typically are operated from austere land areas, shipboard compatible, or even converted barges. They can be flexibly based close to the fight. Doctrine: AH64 units have been conducting overwater attack missions for two decades, and are experienced with the mission.

Reply

blight_ July 14, 2012 at 5:24 pm

Wonder if an Apache can operate from a carrier. Though since the Marines already have Cobras, the better question might be whether the Marines can put a Cobra on a DDG to deal with stereotypical small boats. Or use UAVs and Standards to take them out…

Reply

Guest July 14, 2012 at 5:52 pm

Longbow Block 3 is also shipboard compatible. Previous versions have conducted shipboard ops.

Now I dont think the Iranian swarm mission necessarily *requires* shipboard ops, but that is my opinion. Units can be operated from the land areas close by.

Cobras could be operated the the same way ( KW has done so already historically). But the AB3 is alot more capable than any of those alternatives, and I suppose it really depends upon how many boats you expect in the swarm.

Reply

blight_ July 14, 2012 at 10:03 pm

it's possible that we may be in another Earnest Will scenario escorting Gulf tankers, in which case having a helicopter on hand is worth two in the bush. Something like a FFG would be nice, but I question if the Navy will have funds left to keep FFGs around for their convoy escort mission (and without twin arm, why bother?)

In the end, the matter may boil down to using something like an HC-130 with UAVs. If a HC-130 could communicate with Predators with Hellfires, use them to take out small boat targets. Local control eliminates the pesky satellite latency, and Predators can be pushed to the HC-130 by operators at Creech from the numerous UAV bases that seem to be popping up around the world out of sight, out of mind…

Reply

Guest July 15, 2012 at 5:41 pm

It all depends upon the size they expect the swarm to be. Pred carries how many Hellfire? 2? 4? A single attack helo carries 16.

So if the threat is one or two, UAS works great. If the Iranians empty the yacht club, a helo overwater attack task force would be better suited. And since Longbow Block 3 already can perform Level 4 UAS control, UAS could still support, and no real need for an additional airborne UAS controller; the capability is already fully integrated. In fact, Manned/ Unmanned Teaming of Longbow and UAS would be a great capability for this scenario. Cheers!

Younas November 18, 2012 at 4:54 pm

Hotdog Powerboats are mini power boat go-fast replicas that smlioybze the heart-throbbing thrill you find in today’s high-performance crafts.These sporty novelty boats yield tons of fun for the whole family.

Reply

Kipperbeck July 13, 2012 at 10:32 am

My choice would be the CBU-105 Sensor Fused Weapon with Wind Corrected Munitions Dispenser (WCMD) or a variation of the sub-munitions (skeets) that would attack only small craft with a blast effect vice armored piercing as with the current fom of the weapon. Its advertised that a single B-52 could destroy an entire armored division using the current form of the CBU-105.

Reply

peter davidson September 17, 2012 at 8:50 am

Was thinking CBU97, but yes, it does seem to be the logical choice for taking out multiple, fairly slow moving targets.
like they say "Great minds think alike"

Reply

Yellow Devil July 13, 2012 at 11:53 am

Yeesh, what about a good old fashion quad 50 cal ma duce? I know having the latest and greatest is a soldier's (or in this case sailor's) dream but more complex things means just more instances to fail. Particularly out the in open seas with no concern for collatoral damage.

Reply

funnyGuy July 13, 2012 at 2:43 pm

Haha quad 50s.

Just put a squadron of p51d on each carrier …… problem solved.

*chuckles*

Reply

blight_ July 13, 2012 at 2:46 pm

Put some marines in the rigging to shoot their officers

Reply

FormerDirtDart July 13, 2012 at 5:36 pm

I'm still with mounting howitzers on hover-boards, and crewing them with monkey-drones

Reply

blight_ July 13, 2012 at 5:40 pm

No corvus and boarding action?

Reply

FormerDirtDart July 13, 2012 at 6:19 pm

to much chance of loss of signal during boarding operations

Riceball July 16, 2012 at 1:24 pm

One word, range. An M2 is good to about 2,000 yards, that doesn't exactly give you a lot of stand off distance from a swarm of small boats. While 2,000 yards 1,800 meters is better than the 200 of an RPG-7 which is the likely primary armament of small boats it still doesn't give you much time to take out all of the boats in a swarm before they get within RPG range.

Reply

FormerDirtDart July 16, 2012 at 5:15 pm

Ummm…RPG primary weapon? You, like many others, have made the mistake of thinking the "small boat swarm" is a bunch of boston whalers with RPKs and RPGs. Sure, the Republican Guard are zipping around in over 1000 light craft (radar clutter/suicide). But, the Iranian Navy has a couple hundred real life missile and torpedo fast attack boats (the RG has a few handfuls of these also)

Reply

greensborovet July 21, 2012 at 7:25 pm

I love the 50 cal but the sailors and marines need something with longer range and heavier rounds to take out those boats before they get in missile range or close enough to ram/denonate against a ship.

Reply

RCDC July 16, 2012 at 1:50 am

I think Iran, China, and Russia, all have more than 100 missile boats each. Probably the longbow helo is a good candidate to carry those for defense.

Reply

Johnny Ranger July 17, 2012 at 11:27 am

I wonder how the RAM/SeaRAM would work against a swarm of small boats? I know its warhead is probably optimized for AA (i.e., small), but then again, these ain't battleships we're talking about here…

Reply

Mike July 19, 2012 at 11:02 am

Whatever happened to a mandatory review of MiL-Hnbk 300 to see if a like system already exists in the inventory? Probably a half dozen systems with similar or like capabilities in DoD.

Reply

Infidel4LIFE July 28, 2012 at 2:43 pm

WE ARE FIELDING IT NOW.

Reply

DWCrawford August 21, 2012 at 1:16 pm

Dudes, ever see what happens to fast moving, small boats when you drop and detonate explosives of any type in the water near them? They sink. This does not require an expensive solution to a very low tech problem. Loud hailer calling out "stay away from my ship". They don't comply, they sink and die. PROBLEM SOLVED.

Reply

peter davidson September 17, 2012 at 8:45 am

if you were to apply the same problem of fast attack boats to, say, apc`s or mast moving armoured vehicles, the choice of weapon would be the CBU97 sensor fused weapon! does the Navy have any plans to develop their own version specifically designed for defending against (for instance) Iran`s fast attack boats?
Seems like its technology not being used to its full potential.
Regards Peter Davidson

Reply

orly? July 13, 2012 at 12:43 am

FYI, being slower in modern aerial naval warfare usually means you are shot down before getting to target.

A10s vs modern naval ship = killed A10
A10s vs modern enemy = killed A10

Therefore in a modern navy, you don't use an A10, you use a multipurpose airframe with enough speed to complete its objective, then have the ability to load something other than pummeling surface targets.

Reply

FormerDirtDart July 13, 2012 at 8:46 am

biggest detractors with the Griffin & Navy Spike:
Griffin needs constant lasing to engage moving target, 3.5 (+-) mile range surface-to-surface.
Navy Spike: very small warhead, even less range than Griffin

Reply

orly? July 13, 2012 at 10:55 am

Sorry, I was just answering your question:

"Would you send any airplane directly against a ship with CIWS or RAM?"

With:

"I would send anything flying with relatively high speed."

And got abit too descriptive about why. I was also thinking about the A10 enthusiast when I was typing, my bad.

Reply

FormerDirtDart July 13, 2012 at 11:03 am

It was a rhetorical question, which the second sentence make clear. But obviously, that is beyond your comprehension.

Reply

orly? July 13, 2012 at 11:13 am

Forgive me for trying to dissuade Chops' train of thought as well then.

Reply

Chops July 13, 2012 at 2:32 pm

When you think about the A10s mission on land taking on mechanized divisions that are supported with Anti-Aircraft batteries I would think attacking fast attack boats would be a little bit easier for the pilot.Probably the only A-A-defense they have is shoulder fired SA-7s.

Reply

blight_ July 13, 2012 at 5:41 pm

Sure, but what else do you want the A-10s to do? You could probably embark trainers with a gunpod for such duty.

Gone are the days of having a handful of each aircraft aboard an aircraft carrier. For instance, keeping a Vigilantes and Skywarriors onboard the Cold Warrior carrier along with the F-4, A-4, et al…

Reply

blight_ July 13, 2012 at 5:48 pm

The point is still this: It's all well and good to imagine strawman scenarios where an A-10 could chew up a boat full of people with small arms, but it's way too specialized a niche to justify a carrier slot in a blue-water navy.

However, if you intend to embark a naval A-10 to support missions on land, maybe we're talking….

Reply

blight_ July 14, 2012 at 5:22 pm

The enemy has popped smoke…oh wait, they're shooting at us!

Reply

LeoC July 16, 2012 at 11:37 am

I remember the US Army once worked on a hypersonic missile for tanks. The missile had no warhead and was a laser-rider. Flight times was measured in seconds. A helicopter/plane with a load of these missiles would turn those Iranian boats into Swiss cheese.

Reply

Riceball July 16, 2012 at 1:05 pm

I think a land based support mission from A-10s is feasible, at least in theory. Has no one here read "Red Storm Rising" or was it "The Hunt Red October" by Tom Clancy in where some A-10s ran a simulated attack run on a Russian naval flotilla? I'm no great naval strategist but what he wrote sounded at least plausible to me. Basically the A-10s flew in on the Russians after they were temporarily blinded or distracted from a feint attack from elsewhere which allowed the A-10s to fly in (at sea level I think) and do their simulated attack. Just think of what an A-10s armament could do against unarmored ships, its cannon alone could probably sink or severely damage a cruiser and would probably completely disintegrate a swarm of small boats.

Reply

blight_ July 16, 2012 at 1:27 pm

If your A-10 is going to hang back and fire Mavericks, you don't need a titanium bathtub.

I'm pretty sure it wasn't Hunt for Red October, but I didn't read Red Storm Rising.

As for effects, American damage control has survived things more drastic than a 30mm Equalizer. Mines, Exocets and suicide rafts have more drastic effects. As for other navies, we can't say much based on empirical evidence. The Iranians didn't do well out of Praying Mantis, losing a frigate and some FACs, but does that mean an A-10 would shred them? One way to find out.

Reply

Chops July 16, 2012 at 8:08 pm

If you go to defenseindustrydaily.com they have a good article on the A10-C that illustrates my point on firepower and loiter time.I do appreciate that it's not a naval aircraft but my original post was only in the what-if scenario.I do agree that it would be a great land support asset for the Navy near the Straits of Hormuz-especially after what happened today

Reply

blight_ July 17, 2012 at 2:27 pm

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/07/17/us-usa-

"The fishermen, hospitalized with gunshot wounds after the incident near Dubai's Jebel Ali port, said on Tuesday that they received no warning before the U.S. craft opened fire, and that their craft had attempted to avoid any contact with it.

"We had no warning at all from the ship, we were speeding up to try and go around them and then suddenly we got fired at," 28-year-old Muthu Muniraj told Reuters from hospital, his legs punctured by the rounds of the U.S. craft's .50-caliber gun.

"We know warning signs and sounds and there were none; it was very sudden. My friend was killed, he's gone. I don't understand what happened.""

I'm confused. Wouldn't a fifty /rip your legs off/?

Two; depending on right of way and disposition of both vessels, wouldn't speeding up to go around a vessel be a bad idea? Speeding up to go around a vessel from the bow seems suicidal (risk getting run over PT-109 style), and simply slowing to let the bigger vessel pass might not be a bad idea?

Additionally, regarding weapons, isn't charging at a vessel flying an American flag a bad idea? Considering how few vessels are American flagged, chances are the vessel is carrying special cargo. Additionally, vessel doesn't look like any other merchantman?

Perhaps so people don't pull the "we didn't see their signals" BS, might the better solution be to embark Mk 19 AGLs? Load them with smoke rounds. Fire some colored smoke at the target, then shoot to kill. Granted, walking AGL rounds into a speeding boat may not be as easy as hosing it down with M2's…

Reply

Chops July 17, 2012 at 6:27 pm

You don't actually buy into their statement of no warning and neither do I,also it would be, and ultimately was, a very stupid idea to get anywhere near a military vessel in any circumstance-especially in what could be considered a highly dangerous area.If they didn't see the signal lights and ignored the warning shots,I doubt if dropping a smoke grenade onto the captains' lap would have done any good either,some people just do what they want, and blame the other guy for the consequences.

Reply

Leave a Comment

Previous post:

Next post: