US navy fears asymmetric attacks on its assets

For the luck of all such asymmetric attacks do work one-time only mostly. After that the looming threats will be blown out of the water, whenever they do show up. Most participants are aware about that and will hide that “Joker” as long as possible.

Folks,

Below is something that the US found out about those spy trawlers the Russians had that shadowed our carriers. Also, a little toy that the USN worries about being given to the wrong people (ie the one with the green flag). Drug smugglers already have crude vessels like this. The Iranian version is not crude. Strange, we Americans (the rebels) came up with the idea during our Civil War and now the US Navy has to worry about them again over a 150 years later!!

Jack E. Hammond

PS> Do a google on CSS DAVID

.

Interesting stuff Jack, especially about the CSS David.

It seems that retro fashion is finally hitting the naval service- That second pic there reminds me of Colonial Navy torpedo boats as shown below. Now I wonder if there is a spot of these type of boats in modern day navies as a whole?

The last vessel HMVS Gordon could easily be seen in modern day service despite being retired almost 100 years ago. She carries 2 torpedos on each beam and a four barreled Nordenfelt machine gun fo’ard. Now if we update this to todays standard, we could have 2 MU-90’s on the sides and a 25mm Bushmaster gyro-stabilised gun up front. a few of these might actually serve well in various nations defence/coast guard services, say Africa or Carribean!

The only way to defeat Qaeda and the likes is to make them look meaningless. That means zero media coverage and zero attention to their threats..

That is not possible anymore in our reality. We’d have to overthrow a lot of principals related to freedom in order to do that. And if we did, this would still be a victory for them terrorists, because then they would have made us destroy one of our own most valuable goods.

One has to aim for their reason of being and doing what they are. Why are they fighting America and it’s allies? They don’t see themselves as terrorists. They are fighting for a noble thing too in their own opinion and in their own way.

I think (read: I don’t claim to know) the terrorists are fighting for independence of their people. We Westerners basically drew all the borders in countries they are coming from. We played them like puppets for a long time. Some uninformed person might say “but they are sovereign!” They are not. If they don’t play to our rules we always have some nice surprises for them. And if they do play to our rules it’s only a hand full of their people profiting from it. The rest stays poor and we’re satisfied. The principal can be called Pax Americana, respectively bringing it to world by matters of force.

So what’s the solution to terror then? Well, eventually the only solution is to give them their sovereignty. It would have to be done honestly. Ultimately this means a loss of influence and power for us. The terrorists certainly would celebrate it as their victory. But it would also end their supply of recruits/martyrs sooner than later. Like in the north American colonies of the British Commonwealth during the late 18th century. Once the Brits said “f*ck it, we’re outa here” the newly sovereign Americans had to care about themselves instead of terrorizing Brits. They built up a pretty decent place.

Always being on DefconXY, alert code orange or whatever is not a solution. It only makes us stay in deep distrust as far as to a point where we just leash away our bombs on them once again as a retaliation for their latest terrorist actions. Lastly seen after a terrorist got to American airspace through Yemen and almost blew up a plane. The next days people were discussing air strikes on Yemen… This cannot put an end to terror. It’s a vicious circle.

PS: If you, the reader of this post, are American and have a feeling of being unjustly blamed for something please keep it civil. I’m not blaming Americans for it. We Europeans are happily going along with you. We’re just as “guilty” as you are.

Dear Member,

You have to have a good sighting at a good distance to prevent an attack by a number of semi-submersibles. It is a threat that according to the publication that ever USN officer reads, USNI Proceedings, is taking seriously.

Jack E. Hammond

.

Can’t you detect them by Sonar even in shallow waters?

Again, this appears to be a torpedo trials ship.

You might be right there. But that doesn’t make incorrect what I posted about the Soviet AGIs nor does it make incorrect what I posted about the use of torpedo tubes. I’m not sure the depicted vessel is russian though…

I think the Dutch vessel(s) you are referring to would be ‘torpedo-inschietvaartuig ‘HMS Van Bochove A923, which went out of service late 1986, and its successor ‘torpedowerkship’ HrMs Mercuur (2) A900 which entered service in august 1987. This is referred to as AGE and has a SQR-01 bow mounted active/passive sonar and 2 tubes

The prime missile of Soviet AGI (Auxiliary General Intelligence) trawlers was to monitor USN submarine bases and carriers and perform electronic surveillance (SIGINT). Several hundred were deployed across the globe. During the cold war, AGI trawlers like these were also used to actually disrupt carrier flight operations. These torpedo tubes could fire conventional torpedoes, which could be used against an opposing force being shadowed at sea. However, they could also be used in or near ports, to covertly deploy naval spetsnaz forces [combat swimmers], or to deploy certain types of mines. The sonar housing contains an high frequency (active?) sonar in the 32khz – 45khz range.

Again, this appears to be a torpedo trials ship.

Folks,

Below is something that the US found out about those spy trawlers the Russians had that shadowed our carriers.

.

I thought this well known photo depicted a torpedo trials vessel? After all, any navy that develops torpedoes, or even a navy that simply has a stockpile of imported torpedoes, requires a trial vessel for purposes of weapons testing. The Dutch have a small surface ship with a similar underwater torpedo tube. The vessel in question is the submarine tender Mercuur, a ship which is undeniably an auxiliary, not a clandestine combatant.

Look back, the Soviets employed a large fleet of trawler-type AGIs for electronic surveillance, not as torpedo platforms.

Actually, that urban legend has long been debunked. The Soviets deployed trawler type AGIs for electronic surveillance, in much the same way that the USN deployed ships like the USS Liberty and Pueblo. I suspect that Soviet AGI’s were largely unarmed, much like their American counterparts.

Spy trawlers the Russians had that shadowed our carriers.
.

The prime missile of Soviet AGI (Auxiliary General Intelligence) trawlers was to monitor USN submarine bases and carriers and perform electronic surveillance (SIGINT). Several hundred were deployed across the globe. During the cold war, AGI trawlers like these were also used to actually disrupt carrier flight operations. These torpedo tubes could fire conventional torpedoes, which could be used against an opposing force being shadowed at sea. However, they could also be used in or near ports, to covertly deploy naval spetsnaz forces [combat swimmers], or to deploy certain types of mines. The sonar housing contains an high frequency (active?) sonar in the 32khz – 45khz range.

Underwater torpedo tubes? :confused:

And I seriously doubt the Iranians are planning on suicide speed boats, 20mm guns on typhoon mounts and phalanx would put them on the bottom quick smart.

Dear Member,

You have to have a good sighting at a good distance to prevent an attack by a number of semi-submersibles. It is a threat that according to the publication that ever USN officer reads, USNI Proceedings, is taking seriously.

Jack E. Hammond

.

Underwater torpedo tubes? :confused:

And I seriously doubt the Iranians are planning on suicide speed boats, 20mm guns on typhoon mounts and phalanx would put them on the bottom quick smart.

Folks,

Below is something that the US found out about those spy trawlers the Russians had that shadowed our carriers. Also, a little toy that the USN worries about being given to the wrong people (ie the one with the green flag). Drug smugglers already have crude vessels like this. The Iranian version is not crude. Strange, we Americans (the rebels) came up with the idea during our Civil War and now the US Navy has to worry about them again over a 150 years later!!

Jack E. Hammond

PS> Do a google on CSS DAVID

.

The War on terror?

Anyway, in response to the title of the thread: it should come as no surprise that US Navy fear asymmetrical attacks on its assets. After all, realistically, which navy / armed force could pose a symmetrical threat to the USN? None, IMHO

Well any attacvk post 9/11 could be considered “in wartime” thanks to George W.

Sure, but you don’t seriously refer to present time as wartime because of GW, do you?

Even if you do, reality will contradict you. In World War II, during for example the assault on Iwo Jima, the US lost some (correction) 6.800 marines, and nobody even blinked back in the CONUS. Today a single soldier dies in Afghanistan and all hell brakes loose for days due to the public and media outcry in his home country, US or allied. In fact, if innocents civilians are involved, then it’s double the outcry…

Agreed, except for the fact that in today’s internet world, zero media coverage is easier said than done…

You sure don’t, but then again, D-Day did occur during wartime, right??

Well any attacvk post 9/11 could be considered “in wartime” thanks to George W.

The only way to defeat Qaeda and the likes is to make them look meaningless. That means zero media coverage and zero attention to their threats.. Even if they orchestrate an attack, don’t fvck with them, claim it as an accident.. This way they will slowly lose any levers on achieving their political goals, which in return means less influence, less fans, less recruits, less vendors, sinking popularity and limited financial support. The more this trend will continue, the more people will ask “Al-Qaeda, what is that, some new oriental meal?”

Agreed, except for the fact that in today’s internet world, zero media coverage is easier said than done…

It is very likely that a strategy like this will cost lives in the beginning but it’s not like that current strategies do not. Finally, you don’t call D-day in Normandy 1944 a failure just because there were many casualties, do you?

You sure don’t, but then again, D-Day did occur during wartime, right??

So you either give them publicity and deter them or don’t give them publicity (until they pull of an attack and get it anyway) and wait for the attack? I know which I’d prefer. I’d also show a lot of dead terrorists but I suppose that wouldn’t be PC.

The only way to defeat Qaeda and the likes is to make them look meaningless. That means zero media coverage and zero attention to their threats.. Even if they orchestrate an attack, don’t fvck with them, claim it as an accident.. This way they will slowly lose any levers on achieving their political goals, which in return means less influence, less fans, less recruits, less vendors, sinking popularity and limited financial support. The more this trend will continue, the more people will ask “Al-Qaeda, what is that, some new oriental meal?”

It is very likely that a strategy like this will cost lives in the beginning but it’s not like that current strategies do not. Finally, you don’t call D-day in Normandy 1944 a failure just because there were many casualties, do you?

A good example of how few morons can tie up hundred times worth of enemy forces. Writing few lines on the website results in safety precautions of enormous dimensions costing hundreds of thousands, if not millions of dollars worthlessly spent. This is the ultimate terrorist dream, why blow up ships if it works even without it? 😎

I saw this article and I recalled your comment. Imagine such a level of alert throughout the US navy’s assets all over the world just for a week or two:

Expert: Scrambling fighters to escort Portland airliner understandable, but expensive

“That was one expensive overhead bin incident,” said Michael Boyd, president of Boyd Group International aviation consulting firm in Colorado. Although the military did not have an immediate estimate for the cost, he said scrambling a jet would cost about $10,000 an hour each.

…..

“I would much rather err on the side of caution than not take it seriously and an event happens,” she said. “I would much rather inconvenience the 200-some-odd passengers on the aircraft for a short period of time than have our commanders write condolence letters to their families.”

Although the pilots who flew the jets were Oregon Air National Guard pilots, the federal government will pick up the cost, said Oregon Military Department Capt. Stephen Bomar.

The aviation expert, Boyd, had never before heard of a level-one security threat receiving an F-15 escort, but said the decision is understandable.

Full article: http://www.oregonlive.com/news/index.ssf/2010/01/expert_scrambling_fighters_to.html

Relative thread: http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showthread.php?t=96900

Best regards

So you either give them publicity and deter them or don’t give them publicity (until they pull of an attack and get it anyway) and wait for the attack? I know which I’d prefer. I’d also show a lot of dead terrorists but I suppose that wouldn’t be PC.

I wasn’t advocating the strategy, simply highlighting the problems of dealing with modern terrorism.

Obviously a strong defence is necessary, but the more successful that defence is, the harder it is to keep it up. The majority of the populace is too stupid to understand that a working strategy might not yield a result that they can see, so a lack of terrorist attacks isn’t linked to the expensive counter terror systems in place and people start to call for the money to be reallocated.

And to justify having these strong, and therefore expensive, defences, is to keep public support, which means you have to acknowledge and hype up the threat, which defeats the point of denying them publicity. It means they can get publicity without actually having to do anything, compared to gaining publicity for an actual attack.

So you either give them publicity and deter them or don’t give them publicity (until they pull of an attack and get it anyway) and wait for the attack? I know which I’d prefer. I’d also show a lot of dead terrorists but I suppose that wouldn’t be PC.

Hmm. Surely the best way to deny them publicity is to deter attacks with strong defences? Ignoring the threat means two things, firstly that people get killed needlesly, and secondly that the terrorists gain a huge amount of publicity when they atack.

The price of peace is eternal vigilence.

And to justify having these strong, and therefore expensive, defences, is to keep public support, which means you have to acknowledge and hype up the threat, which defeats the point of denying them publicity. It means they can get publicity without actually having to do anything, compared to gaining publicity for an actual attack.