Article

2008-01-07 Syria-Lebanon-Iran

Iranian Gunboats Harassed, Provoked U.S. Navy Warships

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Sherry 2008-01-07 09:34|| || Front Page|| [11128 views ] Top
File under: Govt of Iran

#1 i would say throwing the boxes into the water would have been a hostile action hence blow them the fuck out of the water

Posted by sinse 2008-01-07 09:45|| 2008-01-07 09:45|| Front Page Top

#2 Sinse - makes sense. Another reply makes sense also.

The key word in the report seems to be "immediately". Intersting to see what is in the "boxes". I suspect this was a fairly naked test of the ROE by the persians, USN response capacity, and retrieval of the boxes which likely contained nothing of note.

The video will be useful when we compare to the upcoming video of the phalanx system activating and the follow on strike at the "box" factory.

Posted by Chusong Grundy6409 2008-01-07 09:59|| 2008-01-07 09:59|| Front Page Top

#3 I would inform Iran that our "no go" area for our ships would be 1 km and if they came closer they would be engaged and destroyed. Then, if they even stuck their big toe over by a meter, the boats go bye-bye.

Posted by DarthVader">DarthVader 2008-01-07 10:04|| 2008-01-07 10:04|| Front Page Top

#4 The Persians have explicitly threatened swarm tactics. I see no advantage in allowing this sort of provocation to continue. Time and again it has been shown that even a modicum of force produces big results. These vessels should all have been destroyed long before they had a chance to test their box deployment.

The ROE must be changed. More important, we need to elect leaders who are prepared to allow our armed forces the latitude to protect themselves and defend us all.

Posted by Excalibur 2008-01-07 10:13|| 2008-01-07 10:13|| Front Page Top

#5 I doubt an American naval commander will let his ship or crew be humiliated the way the Brits did. I hope the iranian seamen's widders an' orphans fund is paid up...

Posted by M. Murcek">M. Murcek 2008-01-07 10:32|| 2008-01-07 10:32|| Front Page Top

#6 What kind of ROE allows the enemy to get within 200 yards of your ship? Is it just me or is 200 yards very close?

The ROE needs to acknowledge that we are in a de-facto war with Iran and have been for thirty years. These boats should have been blown out of the water before they got within half a mile.

Posted by CrazyFool 2008-01-07 10:35|| 2008-01-07 10:35|| Front Page Top

#7 Bush due to tour the mid-east you say? Mmmm... Glad you didn't have your fingers up your proverbial as the RN did in similar circumstances.

Posted by Howard UK 2008-01-07 10:43|| 2008-01-07 10:43|| Front Page Top

#8 What's the effective range of an RPG against a target the size of a US destroyer?

Posted by mrp 2008-01-07 10:46|| 2008-01-07 10:46|| Front Page Top

#9 The Iranian probably know full well that the Americans won't behave like the spineless Royal Navy, so I don't expect them to try anything.

Posted by Apostate 2008-01-07 11:08|| 2008-01-07 11:08|| Front Page Top

#10 What's the effect of an RPG on a DD? Much less than the response to the launcher.

It's the boats getting within 200 yards that's the problem. The Navy seems not yet to be in the war. Time to unleash the Praying Mantis.

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2008-01-07 11:12|| 2008-01-07 11:12|| Front Page Top

#11 Some of the best commentary on this is at Information Dissemination

Posted by Rory B. Bellows 2008-01-07 11:24|| 2008-01-07 11:24|| Front Page Top

#12 I have some good commentary: It is time to refer back to how things were handled when Ronald Regan was running the show. Reference: Operation Praying Mantis

'Really superb video clip at: http://www.navybook.com/nohigherhonor/vid-prayingmantis.shtml

It must have been memorable for the crew of the American ship that delivered the US response. Quoting the Commander as he hailed the Iranian ship (and this is in the video clip):

"This is a warning. Stop, and abandon ship. I intend to sink you..."

Watching and listening to this clip, every single word sounds EXACTLY appropriate to the current situation.

Posted by Lone Ranger 2008-01-07 11:33|| 2008-01-07 11:33|| Front Page Top

#13 This is a warning. Stop, and abandon ship. I intend to sink you..."

I like that.

Posted by Whomong Guelph4611 2008-01-07 11:46|| 2008-01-07 11:46|| Front Page Top

#14 This is a warning. Stop, and abandon ship. I intend to sink you..."

Freakin' awesome.

Posted by DarthVader">DarthVader 2008-01-07 11:47|| 2008-01-07 11:47|| Front Page Top

#15 Put a warning shot amidships.

Posted by mojo">mojo 2008-01-07 11:52|| 2008-01-07 11:52|| Front Page Top

#16 This was an act intended to start a war. They'll be back, and they wont throw cardboard boxes next time.

Posted by bigjim-ky 2008-01-07 12:10|| 2008-01-07 12:10|| Front Page Top

#17 200 yards is too fucking close. I'd splash 'em.

Posted by twobyfour 2008-01-07 12:19|| 2008-01-07 12:19|| Front Page Top

#18 I have some good commentary: It is time to refer back to how things were handled when Ronald Regan was running the show. Reference: Operation Praying Mantis

I have some good commentary as well: look at the background of Operation Praying Mantis. Bit different situation than the present one.

Yes, it was intended to start something. But those who've been through the drill ought to recall what the 'limitations' are.

Posted by Pappy 2008-01-07 12:24|| 2008-01-07 12:24|| Front Page Top

#19 Where's the diplomacy here, and by that I mean the preparation-to-fire-for-effect diplomacy. We should have a canned reply reciting UN positions, Law of the Sea interpretations, and response ratcheting up the transit lanes and clearances - namely 200 yards is way to close, for the next month let's try 2nm in radius, and negotiate further protocol after that works. All of this coordinated with the GCC, Lloyd's parties, and non-military maritime interests.

Is anyone at the State Dept. handling this? Are they lined up at the major studios, domestic and foreign? Huh?

Posted by Chusong Grundy6409 2008-01-07 12:34|| 2008-01-07 12:34|| Front Page Top

#20 Pappy - I'm not sure what you're driving at - but our commanders in the Gulf can either have an outcome like the USS Samuel B. Roberts - or they can have an outcome like the USS Simpson - or they can have no outcome of significance.

Our military is always allowed to exercise self defense - the question here is: How aggressively are we allowed to practice self-defense in a mine-laying situation?

Posted by Lone Ranger 2008-01-07 12:42|| 2008-01-07 12:42|| Front Page Top

#21 From experience, there is actually little that can be done outside of 200yds against small quick moving craft. The guns that were manned are .50 cal and 25mm chain guns. Its hard to hit a target much further then that with them in those situations. I don't want to start a "gun statistics" debate, but from actually being there and knowing how much (little) training they get shooting them, not much more could have been done or expecte. Why else do you think the Iranians turned around at that "magical" range?

The Captain and crew did it right.

Posted by Yosemite Sam 2008-01-07 12:59|| 2008-01-07 12:59|| Front Page Top

#22 The Iranians say, "Move it along, nuthin to see here"...

Iran plays down Gulf incident with US

TEHRAN, Iran - Iran's Foreign Ministry said Monday that a confrontation between Iranian boats and U.S. Navy ships in the Persian Gulf over the weekend was "something normal" and was resolved. It suggested the Iranian boats had not recognized the U.S. vessels.

The Pentagon said that in the incident early Sunday, five small Iranian boats repeatedly "charged" U.S. warships in the Gulf's Hormuz Strait and dropped boxes in the water. The boats warned the U.S. ships that they would set up "explosions," a U.S. Defense Department official said.

The U.S. craft were on the verge of opening fire when the Iranian boats fled, the official said, calling the incidident "the most serious provocation of its sort" in the Gulf. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak on the record.

But Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Mohammed Ali Hosseini played down the incident, suggesting it was an issue of mistaken identity. He did not comment on the U.S. claims of the Iranian boats' actions.

"That is something normal that takes place every now and then for each party, and it (the problem) is settled after identification of the two parties," he told the state news agency IRNA.

The incident was "similar to past ones" that were resolved "once the two sides recognized each other."

U.S. Navy and Iranian officials have said in the past that vessels from the two rival nations frequently come into contact in the waters of the narrow, heavily trafficked Gulf. They often communicate by radio to avoid incidents.

But the latest incident was the first time U.S. officials have spoken of such a direct threat from Iranian boats.

Mistaken identity? Might wanna tell the Iranians that people die of that all the time...

Posted by tu3031 2008-01-07 13:01|| 2008-01-07 13:01|| Front Page Top

#23 How the f*ck do they mistake a US warship for anything else, other than another country's warships? Did they think that they were a approaching an oil tanker and only turned away at 200 yards when they suddenly realized it was a warship?
The US should declare a cordon sanitaire around all US warships of about 2 nm. ANYTHING that approaches closer than that, without permission, should be fired upon.

Posted by Rambler">Rambler 2008-01-07 13:33|| 2008-01-07 13:33|| Front Page Top

#24 An RPG will go 1000 yards before the self destruct detonates. Accurately hitting something at that range, even as large as a ship, from a bobbing boat is another matter. But luck is just as good as skill.

The Phalanx has a range of several kilometers and even the remotely operated 25mm chain guns are stabilized and, I guess, good for at least 2 km against small boats.

Posted by ed 2008-01-07 13:36|| 2008-01-07 13:36|| Front Page Top

#25 Is anyone at the State Dept. handling this?

While I have little confidence in what they'll ultimately come up with, Fox news reported that the DoS is "working on it".

That they didn't have something in the can is a little disappointing.

Then again, I'm perpetually disappointed with our Bottom Foggers.

Posted by eLarson 2008-01-07 13:36|| http://larsonian.blogspot.com]">[http://larsonian.blogspot.com] 2008-01-07 13:36|| Front Page Top

#26 Problem is the ships are not in any territorial waters and by international maritime convention can't exactly do anything to those boats until they definitely do something overtly aggressive (i.e fire upon them or reach the inside threshold where they MUST be stopped). I'd be giving high credit to the crews for not creating a international incident while at the same time making the iranians look like terrorist swine and maritine incompentents who can't even control their own navy.

Posted by Valentine 2008-01-07 13:43|| 2008-01-07 13:43|| Front Page Top

#27 Iran has been a national incident since 1979 and is proud of it.

Posted by Anguper Hupomosing9418 2008-01-07 13:51|| 2008-01-07 13:51|| Front Page Top

#28 A FEW YRS AGO YALL MAY REMEMBER SOME PIRATES IN AFRICA FIRING ON A CRUISE SHIP, HAD VERY LITTLE EFFECT, SORRY CAPS LOCK KEY IS STUCK

Posted by sinse 2008-01-07 14:24|| 2008-01-07 14:24|| Front Page Top

#29 How wide is the Strait of Hormuz? Where is the international boundary of Iran relative to the navigable passage - I don't know that the Iranian boats were even outside nominal Iranian waters.

Posted by Glenmore">Glenmore 2008-01-07 14:32|| 2008-01-07 14:32|| Front Page Top

#30 Well seems US Navy was caught with pants off like the British. The consequences were not so dire...
A Phalanx can have 2km range against something not fast like this boats.

Posted by Pholugum Stalin1270 2008-01-07 14:32|| 2008-01-07 14:32|| Front Page Top

#31 Pappy - I'm not sure what you're driving at -

Operation Praying Mantis was a response to an incident. The mines that hit the Roberts may or may not have been intended for the ship; she was in a minefield after all. However, a causus belli was established.

Same for Operation Prime Hammer, which resulted in the capture of an Iranian minelayer in the process of laying mines, and the subsequent sinking of an Iranian Boghammer after the IRGCN threatened a swarm attack on the support barge Hercules. In all instances a causus belli was establshed.

The IRGC actions echoed what the Soviets often did (pointed weapons w/o using fire control radar, agressive and interfering manuvering, etc).

but our commanders in the Gulf can either have an outcome like the USS Samuel B. Roberts - or they can have an outcome like the USS Simpson - or they can have no outcome of significance.

Or they could have an incident exactly as the IRCGN intended.

Our military is always allowed to exercise self defense - the question here is: How aggressively are we allowed to practice self-defense in a mine-laying situation?

Depends. It could be a mine, it could not be a mine. You treat it as if it were a hazard, short of opening fire on it. Again, the Soviets did the same thing (and we did some things to the Soviets that could also be considered 'aggressive'...)

Posted by Pappy 2008-01-07 14:56|| 2008-01-07 14:56|| Front Page Top

#32 Well seems US Navy was caught with pants off like the British. The consequences were not so dire...

Nice to hear from the head of the Portugese Navy...

A Phalanx can have 2km range against something not fast like this boats

There are other point-defense systems.

Posted by Pappy 2008-01-07 15:01|| 2008-01-07 15:01|| Front Page Top

#33 The narrowest part of the Strait is about 55 nautical miles, but from Wikipedia

Ships moving through the Strait follow a Traffic Separation Scheme (TSS), which separates inbound from outbound traffic to reduce the risk of collision. The traffic lane is six miles wide, including two two-mile-wide traffic lanes, one inbound and one outbound, separated by a two-mile wide separation median.

Given claims around the islands, it's quite possible the Iranian boats were close enough to claimed waters to allow them cover if we were undisciplined enough to respond to an empty provocation.

Posted by lotp 2008-01-07 15:08|| 2008-01-07 15:08|| Front Page Top

#34 !Nice to hear from the head of the Portugese Navy..."

Thanks :) Ormuz was Portuguese from year 1507 to 1508 and 1515 to 1620...

Posted by Pholugum Stalin1270 2008-01-07 16:05|| 2008-01-07 16:05|| Front Page Top

#35 Btw i have read that Phalanx is not anymore being placed as an anti-missile system. It's RAM and ESSM's for small ships.

Posted by Pholugum Stalin1270 2008-01-07 16:20|| 2008-01-07 16:20|| Front Page Top

#36 Iran's Foreign Ministry said Monday that a confrontation between Iranian boats and U.S. Navy ships in the Persian Gulf over the weekend was "something normal" and was resolved. It suggested the Iranian boats had not recognized the U.S. vessels.

The Pentagon said that in the incident early Sunday, five small Iranian boats repeatedly "charged" U.S. warships in the Gulf's Hormuz Strait and dropped boxes in the water. The boats warned the U.S. ships that they would set up "explosions," a U.S. Defense Department official said.

Do they behave like this towards every unknown vessel? I think not. It doesn't even come up to the level of rubbish.

Against some kind of swarm attack, you'll need hundreds of missiles or (even better) tons of lead. Someone please tell me we have tons of lead! It just seems to me that something like a half dozen computerized chaing guns around the periphery of each ship would be a perfect match for a hundred fast patrol boats carrying some kind of portable anti-ship missile. They'll need to deal with both the missiles and the boats. And why would they be practicing this kind of maneuver and dropping mines if they had some kind of anti-ship missile that they could launch against a destroyer? Suggests poor resources or a diversion from true capabilities. I know which one I put my money on!

And whatever happened to their vaunted supersonic torpedo? These probing actions suggest they don't have one. Why am I not shocked?

Want DoS to handle this for real? Station one agent on each ship.

I personally think the captains did fine. This is not how a war with them will start. It's the last thing they want. This is just a test. We don't want to reveal our capabilities just yet. As for the Brits, who could have known the Iranians were going to do what they did? They just wandered a bit too far from the mother ship, and the Iranians had already planned this underhanded operation. The US Navy under slightly different circumstances could have been taken advantage of as well, but hopefully now they know where the Iranians have drawn the line in the water.

Now if the Brits get fooled a second time, I'll have something to say! :-)

Posted by gorb 2008-01-07 16:54|| 2008-01-07 16:54|| Front Page Top

#37 Do they behave like this towards every unknown vessel? I think not. It doesn't even come up to the level of rubbish.

No. But the IRGC has a history of trying to screw with USN vessels. Everything from false distress calls to get a ship to enter Iranian waters, to misleading radio traffic during interdiction ops in order to start an incident, to deliberately aggressive broadcasts (in one instance it was started by someone on an Iranian navy ship; it ended abruptly with an audible 'smack' and someone else, likely the ship's CO, coming on to wish us a safe transit).

As an aside, the KSA navy has or had a habit of shooting first and asking later.

Posted by Pappy 2008-01-07 17:51|| 2008-01-07 17:51|| Front Page Top

#38 What would be nice is some US-made very very very very quite Fuel-Cell Electric boats.

Probably only need 4 of them and charter them for "special purposes".

And get a special purposes tube or 2 on those.

You can see where Im going...

Posted by OldSpook 2008-01-07 18:29|| 2008-01-07 18:29|| Front Page Top

#39 checked out the ABC web article - a lot of the moonbats are screaming "Gulf of Tonkin!" and decrying that it's a "natural" response by Iran cuz they're feeling so "surrounded" by Chimpy Bushitler/Chainey/Halliburton's forces..... *ack* disgusting

Posted by Frank G">Frank G 2008-01-07 18:44|| 2008-01-07 18:44|| Front Page Top

#40 What would be nice is some US-made very very very very quite Fuel-Cell Electric boats.

The ones with operators on board, OS, or the ones that move about without humans right there?

Posted by lotp 2008-01-07 19:09|| 2008-01-07 19:09|| Front Page Top

#41 There are a lot of nice ones of the latter type..

Posted by 3dc 2008-01-07 19:18|| 2008-01-07 19:18|| Front Page Top

#42 of course this video shows a real modern gun boat not that stuff Iran has.

Posted by 3dc 2008-01-07 19:23|| 2008-01-07 19:23|| Front Page Top

#43 I would suggest pulling the Phalanx equipped Destroyer off station, and replacing it with an older version equipped with 5 inch Radar tracking guns, (Or larger) those will take care of "Small fast boats", up to and over the horizon, (Even a near miss will sink them) Video the whole thing, from initial warning to sinking.(Ever hear chering like a football game score, clear across the nation? Show the video and you will, intersplice pictures of the hole in the Cole's side.)

Posted by Redneck Jim 2008-01-07 19:37|| 2008-01-07 19:37|| Front Page Top

#44 Second thought, find or re-commission a few PT boats, carry them aboard destroyers, turn them over the side as needed, cover them with the above mentioned 5 inchers. Happy hunting.
Orders? Sink on sight. No more problems

Posted by Redneck Jim 2008-01-07 19:42|| 2008-01-07 19:42|| Front Page Top

#45 An AH-6 would be a better choice, but they've only operated from larger amphib ships.

Correction: Operation Prime Chance, not Prime Hammer.

Posted by Pappy 2008-01-07 21:05|| 2008-01-07 21:05|| Front Page Top

#46 I believe beehive rounds would be a good choice. Either that, or the Bushmaster cannon they showed on "Future Weapons" -- its rounds will detonate at a set range, and they demonstrated it against small craft.

Of course, staged tests and RL situations often have different results.

Posted by Rob Crawford">Rob Crawford 2008-01-07 21:09|| 2008-01-07 21:09|| Front Page Top

#47 I'm sure the Navy is waiting to start that war until our guys have had a chance to rest a bit after the Surge.

Posted by trailing wife">trailing wife 2008-01-07 22:23|| 2008-01-07 22:23|| Front Page Top

#48 FREEREPUBLIC/TOPIX > USA WARNS IRAN TO BACK DOWN AFTER NAVAL SKIRMISH.

Posted by JosephMendiola 2008-01-07 23:25|| 2008-01-07 23:25|| Front Page Top

23:59 Alaska Paul
23:46 JosephMendiola
23:41 JosephMendiola
23:35 JosephMendiola
23:27 JosephMendiola
23:25 JosephMendiola
22:37 DMFD
22:25 CrazyFool
22:23 trailing wife
22:20 trailing wife
22:14 trailing wife
22:08 trailing wife
22:07 trailing wife
22:07 Barbara Skolaut
22:04 Frank G
22:02 Sock Puppet of Doom
22:00 trailing wife
21:53 trailing wife
21:44 trailing wife
21:35 trailing wife
21:17 Pappy
21:11 Eric Jablow
21:09 Rob Crawford
21:05 Pappy