Commander of USS Cole fails to make Captain

[SUBMAN1]

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

[Godalmighty83]

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.

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by Godalmighty83

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

[bradclark1]

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

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.

[Konovalov]

Originally Posted by bradclark1

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.

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

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by Konovalov

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

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

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

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

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.

[August]

Originally Posted by Kazuaki Shimazaki II

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.

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.

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

Originally Posted by August

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.

Originally Posted by DoD Report

(o) (S U) (b)(6), (b)(7)(C) (AAWC) pushed “Engage” button in response to system tutorial message to “Select Weapon” and received another “Select Weapon” message. (IO Exhibit 91).
(p) (S U) (b)(6), (b)(7)(C) (MSS) again pushed “Request Radiation Assign” button. Authorization sequence was still not completed by AAWC. (IO Exhibit 91).
(q) (S U) (b)(6), (b)(7)(C) (AAWC) pushed “Assign” button in response to “Select Weapon” message. Again he received a “Select Weapon” message. He then pushed “Engage” and got a “Select Weapon” message. (IO Exhibit 91)

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

[August]

Originally Posted by Kazuaki Shimazaki II

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.

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.

[TteFAboB]

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



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.