Commander of USS Cole fails to make Captain
 

http://www.estripes.com/article.asp?...&article=39510

I think this is complete BS if you ask me. Someone else should be held liable for not adequately protecting a port with a ship not at sea. Whats he gonna do? Keep his phalanx armed at all times when it could accidently kill a neutral?

-S

ive seen a phalanx test fre on video, it could have killed many if pointed anywhere near a harbour area.

but that said i dont really know much of the specifics of the attack.

THe specifics are that a harmless looking boat laden full of hidden explosive ran up and committed suicide. No way to guard against that.

Today they take precautions - like at PSNS, they have nets in front of the peer now that prevents boats from getting close.

-S

All craft are supposed to stay a certain distance from U.S. warships. Yes. Even in port. That why armed guards are used. Thats what happens when you don't follow procedure.
The buck stops at the commanders desk.

USS Vincennes teaches us that according to the US Navy, it is better to kill 200+ civvies in the name of defending your vessel than being "nice" and thus getting hit. Note that those guys actually got a citation, which makes me puke (IIRC, even the Soviets had the good grace not to give Ossipovich a medal for hitting the airliner, no matter how they thought it was for the good of the motherland at the time of the shootdown).

To be fair, perhaps it was things like the USS Vincennes that helped make the US decide to impose more restrictive ROEs on their ships.

But really, the real problem, as many have groaned, is in the Up-and-Out system. There are countless COs who don't have that stain. As I understand it, 50% of O5s don't get to make O6. There really is no reason to promote Lippold, even without the uh, special USN emphasis noted above. Letting your ship get hit is letting your ship get hit, and unless Lippold's record was positively shining before that, the unfair move is arguably to promote him anyway.

To be really fair it should be noted that their citation wasn't for shooting down an airliner, but you're right about the competition for higher ranks.

Technically yes (if somewhat tautological since they can't exactly give a citation for "heorically engaging a civvie airliner"), but one of the citations for Lustig was for "quickly and precisely completing the firing procedure", thus suggesting an endorsement of one of the most important parts of the firing procedure - identification. He was also praised with "ability to maintain his poise and confidence under fire", when apparently he can't even read his screen correctly and see that the plane is ascending.

I'd say that when your ship is involved in an accident like this, it is undiplomatic to say the least to give medals for anything remotely related. Not to mention the IAF 655 engagement wasn't even handled all that well, even leaving out the part where they misidentified the airliner. Jabbing the wrong buttons continuously is not the sign of a well handled engagement.

From: http://homepage.ntlworld.com/jksonc/...od-report.html

I am of the exact same opinion as Bradclark on this. :yep:

I was under the impression that the Vincennes citation was related to it's emergency deployment to the Gulf in order to protect the mine damaged Samuel B. Roberts.

I disagree with this one since that this may be the case, but an attacking craft like the one used was impossible to stop with simple armed guards. Unlike Hollywood, people still live for up to 20 seconds with their heart ripped out. THe Red Baron was shot and still managed to land his plane, and even have a conversation with the soldiers that ran up after, even though his heart was disintegrated. This is a suicide attack - it cannot be stopped with a man holding an M-16. Tell that to the IED victims in Iraq - same situation. You cannot defend against it properly. This is to say every one of these IED victims is their fault!

-S

Bring back broadsides! Give 'em Cutlasses, ye can fight without a heart but not without yer head! Argh!

:arrgh!:

Oh, guns are a thing of the past, we have - crazy scientist voice - M I S S I L E S now! Muwahahahahahahaha-ha-ha-ha....ha.....ha....*ahem*.

You wouldn't hear of suicidal rafts if her sides were filled with 50 cals, Vulcans and anti-air cannons.

Since the guard/s didn't shoot we'll never know will we?

THey probably didn't shoot to avoid an international incident too. Change the date to today, and I can gurantee they would shoot! No one expected what happened to the Cole, so no one was prepared for it.

-S

No they weren't prepared. Thats why the Commander got took off the Captains list.
I'll tell you why they didn't shoot. One of the bombers was someone who had made some delivery to the ship earlier in the day. Thats why the guard let the boat get closer. When he finally figured out something was wrong it was too late.
That's why you have Standard Operating Procedures and stick to them.

:/\\x:

The bottom line is that the Captain of a ship is totally responsible for his command and always has been in the US Navy. With few exceptions, Halsey at Cape Engano leaving the northern approaches to the Leyte beachead defended by escort carriers and destroyers comes to mind, the captain of a command pays the price for any incident elated to that command. Witness the fate of the Captain of USS Indianapolis in WW2 or, more recently, the Captain of USS Enterprise in the 1980's when she ran aground in SF Bay returning from a Westpac deployment. Unlike the other services, the Navy has usually never hesitated to relieve a captain of command over these types of incidents. When a ship's captain assumes command, he becomes literally God on earth to those under his command. With that kind of power and responsibility comes the same level of accountability and responsibility. I am not surprised by this report. IIRC, the captain of the submarine that sank that Japanese fishing boat off Hawaii will never get command again either.