LINCOLN

[B.C. Mallam]

The Lincoln looks like a setting duck over there, other than radar and the
Cans what do they have going for them to prevent another USS Cole? Or is
that all they need?

[Andrew C. Toppan]

On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 08:48:40 -0600, "B.C. Mallam" >
wrote:

>The Lincoln looks like a setting duck over there, other than radar and the
>Cans what do they have going for them to prevent another USS Cole? Or is
>that all they need?

Ummmm......

Do you have any knowledge whatsoever of what ships may be escorting
LINCOLN? Here's a hint: she deployed with a battle group.

--
Andrew Toppan --- --- "I speak only for myself"
"Haze Gray & Underway" - Naval History, DANFS, World Navies Today,
Photo Features, Military FAQs, and more - http://www.hazegray.org/

[C.D.Damron]

"Andrew C. Toppan" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 08:48:40 -0600, "B.C. Mallam" >
> Do you have any knowledge whatsoever of what ships may be escorting
> LINCOLN? Here's a hint: she deployed with a battle group.

Mix in a few SEALs.

[Aardvark J. Bandersnatch, MP, LP, BLT, ETC.]

"C.D.Damron" > wrote in message
news:Fr%Fd.6485$IV5.3191@attbi_s54...
>
> "Andrew C. Toppan" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 08:48:40 -0600, "B.C. Mallam" >
>> Do you have any knowledge whatsoever of what ships may be escorting
>> LINCOLN? Here's a hint: she deployed with a battle group.
>
> Mix in a few SEALs.

Add in new rules of engagement...

[--]

"B.C. Mallam" > wrote in message
news:1105714121.44540f3a92ebe5e81f2ca326eb20d55e@t eranews...
> The Lincoln looks like a setting duck over there, other than radar and the
> Cans what do they have going for them to prevent another USS Cole? Or is
> that all they need?

"Sitting Duck"? Hardly.

A lot has changed in recent years. The days of an "An E-3 with a nightstick
and broken flashlight 'guarding' that row of 32 million dollar aircraft" are
LONG gone. Even in port each carrier is VERY well guarded and knows EXACTLY
what threats are in the area.


Larry
AECS (AW/SW/MTS)
USN 'Retired'
20 years if gettin 'em off the pointy end
AND safely home again!

[Pechs1]

BC writes-<< The Lincoln looks like a setting duck over there, other than radar
and the
Cans what do they have going for them to prevent another USS Cole? Or is
that all they need? >><BR><BR>

I say-I'd be willing to bet the CO of any USN ship would rather stand before
the long green table for killing a few sightseers by mistake than have the USS
Cole happen to their ship.

If I saw a USN ship in ANY port in the world, I would not get into a boat to
'get a closer look'.
P. C. Chisholm
CDR, USN(ret.)
Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye Phlyer

[old hoodoo]

The only problem with our smug reassurance that we have corrected the
"security" problem is that terrorists are very flexible. They aways
seem to attack in just the one area not thought about. You can reduce
the risk, but not the possibility.

Terrorists don't attack in order to reduce the size of the US navy. They
do it in with the intention of spreading out/wasting/diverting US
human and material resources and for the publicity. So, now, we expend
a lot more resources protecting ships worldwide when all the terrorists
have done is attack one US ship in a motorboat.

Yes our ships are protected, but in the long run, the attack on the Cole
was a terrorist victory on several fronts.

Of course one little victory doesn't win the war and it may actually
show how limited the terrorist resources are in which they have hundreds
of thousands of targets worldwide but can only successfully engage once
in a while. Maybe the world should not be in a such a panic all the
time, expending a lot of worry when the enemy is going to attack only
sporadically at a time and place of his choosing.

However, think of how little resources the terrorists have spent to
cause worldwide concern and how much we have spent to obtain an uneasy
"security".

I really hope that there is a secret war against terrorism going on, one
that we are winning that we don't know about.

The WTC fell, but the sky didn't...although sometimes I think everyone
thinks so.

Pechs1 wrote:

> BC writes-<< The Lincoln looks like a setting duck over there, other than radar
> and the
> Cans what do they have going for them to prevent another USS Cole? Or is
> that all they need? >><BR><BR>
>
> I say-I'd be willing to bet the CO of any USN ship would rather stand before
> the long green table for killing a few sightseers by mistake than have the USS
> Cole happen to their ship.
>
> If I saw a USN ship in ANY port in the world, I would not get into a boat to
> 'get a closer look'.
> P. C. Chisholm
> CDR, USN(ret.)
> Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye Phlyer

[D]

Lincoln has now moved out to sea. The Indonesians would not let them
operate their jets within Indonesian territorial waters, so the ship moved
outside of them.

It's not easy to intercept a carrier at sea.



D

[Pechs1]

aardvark-<< Add in new rules of engagement...
>><BR><BR>

No kidding. I will bet any CO will gladly smoke a couple of sightseers by
mistake rather than have a unannounced small boat get close to their ship.
P. C. Chisholm
CDR, USN(ret.)
Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye Phlyer

[Thomas Schoene]

Pechs1 wrote:
> aardvark-<< Add in new rules of engagement...
>>> <BR><BR>
>
> No kidding. I will bet any CO will gladly smoke a couple of
> sightseers by mistake rather than have a unannounced small boat get
> close to their ship. P. C. Chisholm

Kennedy ran over a fishing dhow in the Gulf this summer during night flight
ops. They manged not to see the dhow, much less smoke it, until far too
late. Also bent some planes when the ship tried to take evasive action.
I'm sure the CO would have preferred to shoot the damned thing, 'cause
running it over cost him his command and likely his career.
--
Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail
"Our country, right or wrong. When right, to be kept right, when
wrong to be put right." - Senator Carl Schurz, 1872

[D]

----------
In article t>, "Thomas
Schoene" > wrote:

> I'm sure the CO would have preferred to shoot the damned thing, 'cause
> running it over cost him his command and likely his career.

Yeah, poor him. How many people died?




D

[C.D.Damron]

"D" > wrote in message
nk.net...
> Yeah, poor him. How many people died?

It is very likely that the dhow was sitting dead in the water, no lights, no
radar reflector, no crewman on watch, no radio, no flares, no clue.

Little craft share in the responsibility for their own safety.

[[email protected]]

Actually, the Kennedy (CIC, the bridge, and so the CO) had been aware
of the dhow for quite some time. Navy Times ran a fairly detailed
account, but apparently the CO elected to remain on Fox Corpen(some
problem with getting a laggard F-14 back aboard IIRC) even though that
would be bring the dhow close aboard.
Bottom line is the skipper knew about the dhow and ran over it
anyway...(And before anybody starts, I know, ball-diamond-ball and all
that)
Working from memory here...Will see if I can find the article later.

[Pechs1]

damron-<< It is very likely that the dhow was sitting dead in the water, no
lights, no
radar reflector, no crewman on watch, no radio, no flares, no clue.

Little craft share in the responsibility for their own safety. >><BR><BR>

I doubt the CO of the dhow knew that under international rules of the road, a
CV dring flight ops has the right of way. Too bad the CO of the Kennedy got
slammed, but it's 'lonely at the top'.
P. C. Chisholm
CDR, USN(ret.)
Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye Phlyer

[Pechs1]

D-<< Yeah, poor him. How many people died? >><BR><BR>

Why don't you look at the whole picture. CO was running the CV, doing flight
ops at night and the dhow was dead in the water. Didn't the 'CO' of the dhow
have a clue?(no!) The accident was HIS fault, not the CO of the CV.
P. C. Chisholm
CDR, USN(ret.)
Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye Phlyer

[Gord Beaman]

(Pechs1) wrote:

>D-<< Yeah, poor him. How many people died? >><BR><BR>
>
>Why don't you look at the whole picture. CO was running the CV, doing flight
>ops at night and the dhow was dead in the water. Didn't the 'CO' of the dhow
>have a clue?(no!) The accident was HIS fault, not the CO of the CV.
>P. C. Chisholm

Bull.

While I have all sympathy for the trials and tribulations for a
Capt of a carrier maneuvering to pick up a possibly damaged
aircraft while dodging other watercraft they are just that,
'things to be avoided'...he didn't take the NECESSARY care and
killed people...ergo...
--

-Gord.
(use gordon in email)

[nafod40]

Gord Beaman wrote:
> (Pechs1) wrote:
>
>
>>D-<< Yeah, poor him. How many people died? >><BR><BR>
>>
>>Why don't you look at the whole picture. CO was running the CV, doing flight
>>ops at night and the dhow was dead in the water. Didn't the 'CO' of the dhow
>>have a clue?(no!) The accident was HIS fault, not the CO of the CV.
>>P. C. Chisholm
>
> Bull.
>
> While I have all sympathy for the trials and tribulations for a
> Capt of a carrier maneuvering to pick up a possibly damaged
> aircraft while dodging other watercraft they are just that,
> 'things to be avoided'...he didn't take the NECESSARY care and
> killed people...ergo...

I bet if it had been an island, he'd have turned.

From a safety standpoint, both parties had opportunities to avoid the
incident. But as they say, if this incident was a bacon and egg
breakfast, the CO was the chicken, and the dhow skipper was the pig.

I'd have moved my dhow.

[Gord Beaman]

nafod40 > wrote:

>Gord Beaman wrote:
>> (Pechs1) wrote:
>>
>>
>>>D-<< Yeah, poor him. How many people died? >><BR><BR>
>>>
>>>Why don't you look at the whole picture. CO was running the CV, doing flight
>>>ops at night and the dhow was dead in the water. Didn't the 'CO' of the dhow
>>>have a clue?(no!) The accident was HIS fault, not the CO of the CV.
>>>P. C. Chisholm
>>
>> Bull.
>>
>> While I have all sympathy for the trials and tribulations for a
>> Capt of a carrier maneuvering to pick up a possibly damaged
>> aircraft while dodging other watercraft they are just that,
>> 'things to be avoided'...he didn't take the NECESSARY care and
>> killed people...ergo...
>
>I bet if it had been an island, he'd have turned.
>
> From a safety standpoint, both parties had opportunities to avoid the
>incident. But as they say, if this incident was a bacon and egg
>breakfast, the CO was the chicken, and the dhow skipper was the pig.
>
>I'd have moved my dhow.

Doesn't sound fair to me...the dhow had full rights to be in his
position in the ocean, the carrier tried to usurp that
right...pretty simple I'd say.

You park your car in a public parking slot on a street, some jerk
totals it with his car...who's at fault?

Takes a big brain to figure that one out...
--

-Gord.
(use gordon in email)

[nafod40]

Gord Beaman wrote:
>
> Doesn't sound fair to me...the dhow had full rights to be in his
> position in the ocean, the carrier tried to usurp that
> right...pretty simple I'd say.

Yea, but who's dead and who's not?

[Noah Little]

nafod40 wrote:

> Yea, but who's dead and who's not?

Depends upon whether you're talking about life or career...

--
Noah

[[email protected]]

>Why don't you look at the whole >picture. CO was running the CV,
>doing flight
>ops at night and the dhow was dead >in the water. Didn't the 'CO' of
the >dhow have a clue?(no!)
As more than a few hapless-well equipped and presumably well informed-
small boys have found out, staying out of a carrier's way can be a
difficult chore at times. Thats especially true if all you are relying
on are visual cues at night, which this dhow likely was.
I strongly suspect that the Kennedy may have fallen prey to a bogus
course and speed presented by an NTDS symbol...I call that kind of
getting snookered by bogus track data the "Vincennes Effect", after a
particularly bad instance of over reliance on what the box tells you.
No matter how high tech, there is no replacing a Seaman's eye.

[Gord Beaman]

Noah Little > wrote:

>nafod40 wrote:
>
>> Yea, but who's dead and who's not?
>
>Depends upon whether you're talking about life or career...

Well, perhaps I'm wrong but it appeared that people were looking
to excuse the carrier's Capt for the accident...it most damned
certainly *was* his fault.
--

-Gord.
(use gordon in email)

[D]

----------
In article >,
(Pechs1) wrote:

> D-<< Yeah, poor him. How many people died? >><BR><BR>
>
> Why don't you look at the whole picture. CO was running the CV, doing flight
> ops at night and the dhow was dead in the water. Didn't the 'CO' of the dhow
> have a clue?(no!) The accident was HIS fault, not the CO of the CV.

Yeah, poor CO. He ended his career. Once again, how many people died?




D

[LT Steven J Henderson]

In article >, pechs1
@aol.com says...
> D-<< Yeah, poor him. How many people died? >><BR><BR>
>
> Why don't you look at the whole picture. CO was running the CV, doing flight
> ops at night and the dhow was dead in the water. Didn't the 'CO' of the dhow
> have a clue?(no!) The accident was HIS fault, not the CO of the CV.
> P. C. Chisholm
> CDR, USN(ret.)
> Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye Phlyer
>
Sorry to butt in here but...

I posted a message back when this was "new" news, so forgive me if
anyone has heartburn about the re-stating:

I qualified OOD on the LINCOLN in 2001 and was conning officer on the
deployment before that. The Gulf is a busy place, and the Nimitz class
carriers aren't really designed to be in those close quarters. Most of
the dhows will give you some, not a lot, but some, space when you are
conducting flight ops. Some won't, out of spite or because they just
don't care. You have to be aware of them at all times.

In my PERSONAL opinion, the entire team failed the CO. The TAO, CIC
watch officer, TOP watch, look outs, and the entire bridge team.

Spending lots of time on the bridge, my opinion is that bridge team
should have given lots of warning and suggestions for avoiding
collision. The bridge team, and the enlisted look outs, either have
windows or are actually outside. Night vision, binoculars, and regular
eyeballs are always available in addition to the numerous radars.

The CO is responsible, but I'm sure others were also held accountable.

Just my personal opinion.

[Thomas Schoene]

Pechs1 wrote:
> damron-<< It is very likely that the dhow was sitting dead in the
> water, no lights, no
> radar reflector, no crewman on watch, no radio, no flares, no clue.
>
> Little craft share in the responsibility for their own safety.
> >><BR><BR>
>
> I doubt the CO of the dhow knew that under international rules of the
> road, a CV dring flight ops has the right of way. Too bad the CO of
> the Kennedy got slammed, but it's 'lonely at the top'.

I'll wager that the CO's relief had less to do with rules of the road than
with letting an unknown small craft run into his ship (or vice versa) in the
Persian Gulf after the Cole bombing. That's a major force protection faux
pas.

--
Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail
"Our country, right or wrong. When right, to be kept right, when
wrong to be put right." - Senator Carl Schurz, 1872

[C.D.Damron]

"LT Steven J Henderson" > wrote in message
. ..
> In article >, pechs1
> @aol.com says...
> Just my personal opinion.

If we are going to offer personal opinions, **** 'em, don't bring a dhow to
a carrier fight.