Somali pirates hijack ship; 20 Americans aboard

[K1052]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: eskimospy

And why are we doing this instead of just using a CG or DDG that could accomplish the same thing for $0 worth of refitting? More importantly we could send one of these ships over there tomorrow instead of waiting the months it would take to service, crew, and train the crew of a BB.

A lack of suitable long range firepower.

Please explain what missions you believe need to be undertaken in the Somalia area that require long range naval artillery support that a DDG or CG could not supply.

The 5 inch naval gun doesn't throw enough weight or have enough range (even the Navy admits this). To even approach what a 16 inch naval shell can do you'd either need to use a Tomahawk or have a carrier nearby.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: eskimospy

And why are we doing this instead of just using a CG or DDG that could accomplish the same thing for $0 worth of refitting? More importantly we could send one of these ships over there tomorrow instead of waiting the months it would take to service, crew, and train the crew of a BB.

A lack of suitable long range firepower.

Please explain what missions you believe need to be undertaken in the Somalia area that require long range naval artillery support that a DDG or CG could not supply.

The 5 inch naval gun doesn't throw enough weight or have enough range (even the Navy admits this). To even approach what a 16 inch naval shell can do you'd either need to use a Tomahawk or have a carrier nearby.

What pirate targets in the Somali coastal area require a 16 inch gun to penetrate or reach?

 

[fskimospy]

Oh, and what's wrong with using Tomahawk missiles? It would be much cheaper than using a BB.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

What pirate targets in the Somali coastal area require a 16 inch gun to penetrate or reach?

Oh, and what's wrong with using Tomahawk missiles? It would be much cheaper than using a BB.

The best the 5 inch naval gun can do is fire a 70lb projectile about 13 miles. The 16 inch can send a 1,900lb HC projectile 24 miles. The DDG and CG suck at things that don't involve fighting other naval ships or shooting a missile at something.

Tomahawk unit cost is about 600K a shot. That could be a tad cost prohibitive over the long term.

 

[spacejamz]

Originally posted by: CitizenKain
Funny that no articles cover why there is piracy in the area, it certainly couldn't be because many nations take fish from the the waters off the coast which leads to out of work fisherman.

Text

Pirates are attracted by Somalia's lawlessness and its strategic location. The Gulf of Aden is one of the world's busiest waterways, with 20,000 merchant ships passing through yearly on their way to and from the Suez Canal. Countless fishing boats drop anchor in search of tuna, snapper and barracuda, which are plentiful in Somali waters.

"Years ago, our life depended on fishing, but now we have a lot of money. We have luxury cars, beautiful houses and everything we want in our coastal village," said Salah beloved patriot Bahdon, who identified himself as a pirate in a phone interview with The Associated Press from the community of Eyl. The region is where many hijacked ships are anchored while pirates negotiate ransoms.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: eskimospy

What pirate targets in the Somali coastal area require a 16 inch gun to penetrate or reach?

Oh, and what's wrong with using Tomahawk missiles? It would be much cheaper than using a BB.

The best the 5 inch naval gun can do is fire a 70lb projectile about 13 miles. The 16 inch can send a 1,900lb HC projectile 24 miles. The DDG and CG suck at things that don't involve fighting other naval ships or shooting a missile at something.

Tomahawk unit cost is about 600K a shot. That could be a tad cost prohibitive over the long term.

Right, and this 70lb high explosive round has a rate of fire approximately 10 times that of the 16 inch guns. I'm going to ask you again, what targets in Somalia do you believe require 16 inch guns to reach and/or penetrate? If they can move inland 14 miles to be out of range of the 5 inch guns, they can move a bit farther inland to be out of range of the BB's guns. I spent 4 years on a CG, and god only knows how many gunfire support exercises we conducted. If you want to bombard land targets, a CG can put 40 high explosive rounds on target per minute. That'll do just fine.

You realize that the only reason the BB's aren't totally scrapped is because Congress won't let the Navy do it for political reasons, right? The Navy considers the ships to be expensive and mostly useless.

Oh, and also you do realize how insanely expensive BB's are to upkeep and operate, right? If you're so worried about $600k Tomahawk missiles, just think how many do you think we could launch for the amount of money we would have to spend to put those ships back to sea and operate them? If I had to make an educated guess on the operating expenses of a BB in a modern day environment I'd guess it would cost about $150k a day to operate. (if not more) When you count in all the time and additional money it would take to put a BB back in action, that buys a shitload of tomahawks. (which are far more effective anyway)

You just want to have a battleship over there because it sounds cool and they look neat. If you expect the taxpayer to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to restore and put this ship back to sea, you better be able to say EXACTLY why that's necessary.

 

[spacejamz]

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: eskimospy

What pirate targets in the Somali coastal area require a 16 inch gun to penetrate or reach?

Oh, and what's wrong with using Tomahawk missiles? It would be much cheaper than using a BB.

The best the 5 inch naval gun can do is fire a 70lb projectile about 13 miles. The 16 inch can send a 1,900lb HC projectile 24 miles. The DDG and CG suck at things that don't involve fighting other naval ships or shooting a missile at something.

Tomahawk unit cost is about 600K a shot. That could be a tad cost prohibitive over the long term.

getting a BB ready for combat isn't?

besides that would be like using a shotgun to kill a fly...

 

[feralkid]

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: eskimospy

And why are we doing this instead of just using a CG or DDG that could accomplish the same thing for $0 worth of refitting? More importantly we could send one of these ships over there tomorrow instead of waiting the months it would take to service, crew, and train the crew of a BB.

A lack of suitable long range firepower.

Please explain what missions you believe need to be undertaken in the Somalia area that require long range naval artillery support that a DDG or CG could not supply.

The 5 inch naval gun doesn't throw enough weight or have enough range (even the Navy admits this). To even approach what a 16 inch naval shell can do you'd either need to use a Tomahawk or have a carrier nearby.

Could you repeat that? I was busy aiming my stinger at a fly who was hovering over the tea I was brewing in my nuclear reactor.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: eskimospy

What pirate targets in the Somali coastal area require a 16 inch gun to penetrate or reach?

Oh, and what's wrong with using Tomahawk missiles? It would be much cheaper than using a BB.

The best the 5 inch naval gun can do is fire a 70lb projectile about 13 miles. The 16 inch can send a 1,900lb HC projectile 24 miles. The DDG and CG suck at things that don't involve fighting other naval ships or shooting a missile at something.

Tomahawk unit cost is about 600K a shot. That could be a tad cost prohibitive over the long term.

Right, and this 70lb high explosive round has a rate of fire approximately 10 times that of the 16 inch guns. I'm going to ask you again, what targets in Somalia do you believe require 16 inch guns to reach and/or penetrate? If they can move inland 14 miles to be out of range of the 5 inch guns, they can move a bit farther inland to be out of range of the BB's guns. I spent 4 years on a CG, and god only knows how many gunfire support exercises we conducted. If you want to bombard land targets, a CG can put 40 high explosive rounds on target per minute. That'll do just fine.

You realize that the only reason the BB's aren't totally scrapped is because Congress won't let the Navy do it for political reasons, right? The Navy considers the ships to be expensive and mostly useless.

Oh, and also you do realize how insanely expensive BB's are to upkeep and operate, right? If you're so worried about $600k Tomahawk missiles, just think how many do you think we could launch for the amount of money we would have to spend to put those ships back to sea and operate them? If I had to make an educated guess on the operating expenses of a BB in a modern day environment I'd guess it would cost about $150k a day to operate. (if not more) When you count in all the time and additional money it would take to put a BB back in action, that buys a shitload of tomahawks. (which are far more effective anyway)

You just want to have a battleship over there because it sounds cool and they look neat. If you expect the taxpayer to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to restore and put this ship back to sea, you better be able to say EXACTLY why that's necessary.

The light 5 inch gun on the CGs and DDG expend the capacity of their auto loaders after 20 rounds and still not reach the yield of a single 16 inch HC (let alone salvo fire). It's just possible you might want to bring a little more firepower to bear and do it at less than over half a million a shot and can also be trained against naval targets (much more cheaply than a Harpoon).

The Navy's biggest problem with BBs was the manpower required to operate them as a modern front line unit. I'm not talking about manning it up to full combat strength.

I'm not advocating total reactivation of the Iowa's but you could actually make case now since the Zumwalt class, which was supposed to address the gunfire shortcomings of the present fleet, is all but dead

 

[StageLeft]

Originally posted by: CitizenKain
Funny that no articles cover why there is piracy in the area, it certainly couldn't be because many nations take fish from the the waters off the coast which leads to out of work fisherman.

This is Somalia. The place is a fvcking write-off.

Anyway, one problem with arming the crews is that if you're on an oil tanker would you really want somebody in a skif with an RPG firing at you?

 

[Suspicious-Teach8788]

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: eskimospy

And why are we doing this instead of just using a CG or DDG that could accomplish the same thing for $0 worth of refitting? More importantly we could send one of these ships over there tomorrow instead of waiting the months it would take to service, crew, and train the crew of a BB.

A lack of suitable long range firepower.

Please explain what missions you believe need to be undertaken in the Somalia area that require long range naval artillery support that a DDG or CG could not supply.

The 5 inch naval gun doesn't throw enough weight or have enough range (even the Navy admits this). To even approach what a 16 inch naval shell can do you'd either need to use a Tomahawk or have a carrier nearby.

Why would you need to shell someone 15 miles away when you have planes? Using a 5 inch shell will screw up ANY Somali pirate ship. Even if they had something as heavily armed as a DDG, we would screw them up already. Jeez, it's not like they're riding some WW2 Battleship with heavy armor like a South Dakota or Iowa.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: K1052

The light 5 inch gun on the CGs and DDG expend the capacity of their auto loaders after 20 rounds and still not reach the yield of a single 16 inch HC (let alone salvo fire). It's just possible you might want to bring a little more firepower to bear and do it at less than over half a million a shot and can also be trained against naval targets (much more cheaply than a Harpoon).

The Navy's biggest problem with BBs was the manpower required to operate them as a modern front line unit. I'm not talking about manning it up to full combat strength.

I'm not advocating total reactivation of the Iowa's but you could actually make case now since the Zumwalt class, which was supposed to address the gunfire shortcomings of the present fleet, is all but dead

How are you not going to man it up to full combat strength? You're suggesting putting a ship to sea with less than a full crew? What departments do you want to cut? I'd love to know. Again, as before, I will continue to ask you what possible mission you are thinking of that a 5"/54 cannot accomplish that you think these 16" batteries are required for. You're talking about hundreds of millions of dollars, and you can't seem to illustrate what mission would possibly require this.

The Somali pirates use small ships that a 5"/54 can destroy every bit as easily as a 16" broadside. In fact, the 5" is probably far superior to the 16" as the rate of fire is higher in case of a miss. (20 rounds/min vs. 2 rounds/min) Nobody would possibly advocate using a harpoon against the small boat targets that Somali pirates use. Do you even know how surface warfare works?

BB's are a bad investment. They are shitty ships for our current requirements. Nobody who knows anything about naval warfare wants to reactivate them in any way, shape, or form, because their strengths don't address current requirements vis a vis their upkeep and operating costs. Also, I'm not even sure what a partial reactivation would be. Are you going to send ships to sea half manned? Under-equipped? What?

 

[Pocatello]

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: eskimospy

What pirate targets in the Somali coastal area require a 16 inch gun to penetrate or reach?

Oh, and what's wrong with using Tomahawk missiles? It would be much cheaper than using a BB.

The best the 5 inch naval gun can do is fire a 70lb projectile about 13 miles. The 16 inch can send a 1,900lb HC projectile 24 miles. The DDG and CG suck at things that don't involve fighting other naval ships or shooting a missile at something.

Tomahawk unit cost is about 600K a shot. That could be a tad cost prohibitive over the long term.

Right, and this 70lb high explosive round has a rate of fire approximately 10 times that of the 16 inch guns. I'm going to ask you again, what targets in Somalia do you believe require 16 inch guns to reach and/or penetrate? If they can move inland 14 miles to be out of range of the 5 inch guns, they can move a bit farther inland to be out of range of the BB's guns. I spent 4 years on a CG, and god only knows how many gunfire support exercises we conducted. If you want to bombard land targets, a CG can put 40 high explosive rounds on target per minute. That'll do just fine.

You realize that the only reason the BB's aren't totally scrapped is because Congress won't let the Navy do it for political reasons, right? The Navy considers the ships to be expensive and mostly useless.

Oh, and also you do realize how insanely expensive BB's are to upkeep and operate, right? If you're so worried about $600k Tomahawk missiles, just think how many do you think we could launch for the amount of money we would have to spend to put those ships back to sea and operate them? If I had to make an educated guess on the operating expenses of a BB in a modern day environment I'd guess it would cost about $150k a day to operate. (if not more) When you count in all the time and additional money it would take to put a BB back in action, that buys a shitload of tomahawks. (which are far more effective anyway)

You just want to have a battleship over there because it sounds cool and they look neat. If you expect the taxpayer to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to restore and put this ship back to sea, you better be able to say EXACTLY why that's necessary.

The light 5 inch gun on the CGs and DDG expend the capacity of their auto loaders after 20 rounds and still not reach the yield of a single 16 inch HC (let alone salvo fire). It's just possible you might want to bring a little more firepower to bear and do it at less than over half a million a shot and can also be trained against naval targets (much more cheaply than a Harpoon).

The Navy's biggest problem with BBs was the manpower required to operate them as a modern front line unit. I'm not talking about manning it up to full combat strength.

I'm not advocating total reactivation of the Iowa's but you could actually make case now since the Zumwalt class, which was supposed to address the gunfire shortcomings of the present fleet, is all but dead

It's cheaper to buy off the pirates than build one of the Zumwalt class ship . Seriously, most companies would prefer to pay ransoms rather than to invest in better protection of their ships.

 

[JJChicken]

Originally posted by: marincounty
What will Obama do? That remains to be seen. But I know what GWB would do, he would invade Nigeria!

:laugh:

 

[CanOWorms]

Originally posted by: winnar111
He'll pretend to care about Africa then do absolutely nothing.

Lefties and Europeans don't actually give a damn about the continent.

The Europeans care a lot about Africa. It's a great place to pillage for them. The French are the perfect example with organizing genocides, installing cannibalistic rulers, etc.

I hope that the US sends a bill to the British government. Their colonialist barbarism in Somalia led to this situation. It would be another great showing of the decline of the supposed special relationship.

 

[spacejamz]

Text

:Q

Pirates recapture U.S. hostage after escape bid

Navy officials watch as sailor jumps off drifting lifeboat, NBC News reports

MOGADISHU, Somalia - The American sailor being held hostage by Somali pirates managed to jump off the lifeboat overnight but was recaptured, NBC News reported Friday.

Captain Richard Phillips tried to swim away before being taken back into the pirates' custody, NBC's Jim Miklaszewski told the TODAY show.

The escape bid was witnessed by the U.S. Navy but happened too quickly for them to come to his aid.

The lifeboat was drifting at sea after running out of fuel, and the pirates have vowed to fight any attack by U.S. naval forces stalking them at high sea.

"We are not afraid of the Americans," one of the pirates told Reuters by satellite phone on behalf of the gang holding Phillips in the Indian Ocean. "We will defend ourselves if attacked."

 

[tboo]

Originally posted by: Skoorb
It's time to fuel-air the entire somali coast. The place is epic fail.

Daisy Cutters FTW

 

[dahunan]

Just get permission from that guys wife to BOMB them all him included.. but destroy EVERYTHING... turn that shithole into one giant briquette

 

[spacejamz]

I wonder what the Navy would do if another boat with pirates (I couldn't bring myself to type pirate ship :laugh attempts to rendezvous with the 4 pirates...would they use force to stop them?

 

[b0mbrman]

Originally posted by: cubeless
we have a test...

let's see what the guy does...

What should he do?

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: spacejamz

"We are not afraid of the Americans," one of the pirates told Reuters by satellite phone on behalf of the gang holding Phillips in the Indian Ocean. "We will defend ourselves if attacked."

That's the problem. They're not afraid because they know we won't do shit. Send the captain a message in morse code or with naval flags to have him jump/swim away on a signal. Then just mow the "pirates" down or snipe them.

 

[Budmantom]

Originally posted by: seemingly random

Originally posted by: Budmantom

Originally posted by: seemingly random

Originally posted by: Budmantom

Originally posted by: seemingly random
I think people are severely disappointed that we don't have a potus like maccain who would be shooting from the hip.

I'm sure Obama is reading a book about leadership.

Why would he need to do this? He's been a community organizer. It's more qualification than anything the party of no has to offer.

Party of No?


Are you referring to spending?

This would be the party of no that's still drunk from all the spending of the last eight years - the party that authorized 800+ billion for the start of the financial sector bailout. So, I guess no has different meanings depending on the agenda.

But this isn't about money - it's about calling into doubt the backbone of the potus - something you and yours are doing. Hopefully, if action is needed, obama will act decisively. But I suspect no action will ever be satisfactory to you. I think you want the u.s. to fail in a big way so you will feel vindicated. This isn't illegal but seems immoral - at the very least, unpatriotic.

Obama is making Bush look like a fiscal conservative, I'm not sure why any of you dumb-asses want to talk about Bushes spending, have you heard of Obama?

In your second paragraph are you referring to the Democratic party for the last 8 years?
Don't forget they tried to surrender and admitted defeat in Iraq a number of times.

 

[Budmantom]

Fox just reported that Obama has called Jimmy Carter to see what he should do.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Budmantom
Fox just reported that Obama has called Jimmy Carter to see what he should do.

I bet you're hoping they kill the captain so you can rag on Obama.

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: Budmantom
Fox just reported that Obama has called Jimmy Carter to see what he should do.

LOL! Best post ever. I was even thinking "Is obama going to pull a Carter on this one?" before your post.