Trump says he's instructed Navy to 'destroy' any Iranian gunboats harassing US ships

a reply to: asabuvsobelow

The P-3 absolutely has offensive capabilities. They carry torpedoes and antiship missiles. A gunship, even several of them are going to have a hard time sinking a destroyer, or even an LPD. A single P-3 could actually pretty easily at least cripple one, if not outright sink it.

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: asabuvsobelow

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: face23785

As with all orders, the person on scene has discretion. The captain's on scene have the option to shoot, if they feel there's a threat. They're not required to shoot any time they get close.

That makes a lot more sense than what some other posters are claiming. I suspect they just don't understand the distinction between what you just said and what they've been saying.

If what they've been claiming was true, nothing has changed here. If their characterizations of what those "standing orders" are were not accurate, then Trump's instructions to shoot next time they get close like that is indeed a meaningful change, and a story.

As I've been trying to explain to these people, there has been no standing order for the last "12 years" or "20 years" for our ships to definitively shoot any plane or watercraft that gets too close. If there was such an order, it has been routinely disobeyed.

My point is that there was no such order. Our ROE were more nuanced than that, but Trump's directive here changed that dynamic a bit. I still believe the Navy will use some discretion.

Clearly you don't understand the way Military and Military orders work .

Zaphod58 answered your question about the orders and you seemed to agree with and disagree with him at the same time . Either way what Zaphod58 said is the Answer to your question and I agree with him, not sure what your looking for beyond that.

And also you did'nt pay attention to what I said , I said show me an instance where an " Iranian Gunship " violated US Naval airspace . What you googled are simply Iranian Reconnaissance air craft that pose no offensive threat, and one of the instances was our Navy who violated there training space not them on us , and the other was an Orion P-3 recon air craft that was probably at 40,000 feet .

An Iranian Gunship on the other hand is a Helicopter armed to the teeth with rockets , missiles, cannon and machine guns along with state of the art targeting systems . If one of those were violating the US naval airspace that is a Blatant offensive provocation .

Clearly you don't know what you're talking about. You're speaking to a vet. I am pretty well-versed on how the military works.

And no I didn't disagree with Zaph, at all. Of the two of us, one of is not understanding what the other is saying, and it's not me. You obviously do not understand my posts if you think I disagreed with Zaph. Go back and re-read my posts and try to understand what I'm saying.

There's a glaring difference between standing orders to shoot anything that comes near you and orders to shoot anything you consider a threat. You seem to not get the difference between the two.

I'm a veteran to Chief , and how do you know exactly what there orders were ?

Its the Captains discretion whether he considers what is flying near them a threat. As no one is going to give the order to a captain to shoot down anything that comes near them unless we are in a literal combat situation.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: asabuvsobelow

The P-3 absolutely has offensive capabilities. They carry torpedoes and antiship missiles. A gunship, even several of them are going to have a hard time sinking a destroyer, or even an LPD. A single P-3 could actually pretty easily at least cripple one, if not outright sink it.

I had know idea an Orion P-3 had an internal Bombay , but it sure does I stand corrected .

en.wikipedia.org...

a reply to: RadioRobert

When I was in we definitely shot at boats that came too close without permission.

There's basically different zones where different measures are used.

We attempt to contact, then move to lasers, then to LRADS, then to flares, then we start shooting. When it came to shooting we were technically supposed to actually shoot the crafts, but we would "miss".

That always did the trick when they would play dumb.

On VBSS we would go out in our RHIBs and they would always say their comms weren't working or something else stupid.

On CIWS, there usually wasn't anything left of the craft.

Note earlier whem I mentioned how close the Russians would get to us and we would dance around each other. There's a common understanding that we are for the most part messing with each other. Getting practice in.

With IRGC and the Somalian pirates for instance. They play stupid games. And they very rarely win.

When you mention sailors afraid to shoot that's because their commands failed to train them properly and are usually too inundated with the PC culture that has plagued the military in the past decade or so.

On my ship we knew what needed to be done, and we did it. There's a lot more that goes on in international waters than what you'll ever hear in the media.

EDIT.

I know you've got military experience, this isn't necessarily directed at you.

originally posted by: asabuvsobelow

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: asabuvsobelow

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: face23785

As with all orders, the person on scene has discretion. The captain's on scene have the option to shoot, if they feel there's a threat. They're not required to shoot any time they get close.

That makes a lot more sense than what some other posters are claiming. I suspect they just don't understand the distinction between what you just said and what they've been saying.

If what they've been claiming was true, nothing has changed here. If their characterizations of what those "standing orders" are were not accurate, then Trump's instructions to shoot next time they get close like that is indeed a meaningful change, and a story.

As I've been trying to explain to these people, there has been no standing order for the last "12 years" or "20 years" for our ships to definitively shoot any plane or watercraft that gets too close. If there was such an order, it has been routinely disobeyed.

My point is that there was no such order. Our ROE were more nuanced than that, but Trump's directive here changed that dynamic a bit. I still believe the Navy will use some discretion.

Clearly you don't understand the way Military and Military orders work .

Zaphod58 answered your question about the orders and you seemed to agree with and disagree with him at the same time . Either way what Zaphod58 said is the Answer to your question and I agree with him, not sure what your looking for beyond that.

And also you did'nt pay attention to what I said , I said show me an instance where an " Iranian Gunship " violated US Naval airspace . What you googled are simply Iranian Reconnaissance air craft that pose no offensive threat, and one of the instances was our Navy who violated there training space not them on us , and the other was an Orion P-3 recon air craft that was probably at 40,000 feet .

An Iranian Gunship on the other hand is a Helicopter armed to the teeth with rockets , missiles, cannon and machine guns along with state of the art targeting systems . If one of those were violating the US naval airspace that is a Blatant offensive provocation .

Clearly you don't know what you're talking about. You're speaking to a vet. I am pretty well-versed on how the military works.

And no I didn't disagree with Zaph, at all. Of the two of us, one of is not understanding what the other is saying, and it's not me. You obviously do not understand my posts if you think I disagreed with Zaph. Go back and re-read my posts and try to understand what I'm saying.

There's a glaring difference between standing orders to shoot anything that comes near you and orders to shoot anything you consider a threat. You seem to not get the difference between the two.

I'm a veteran to Chief , and how do you know exactly what there orders were ?

I don't, and apparently neither do you because you've still yet be able to show me exactly where there's a "standing order" to shoot anything that comes near them.

Its the Captains discretion whether he considers what is flying near them a threat. As no one is going to give the order to a captain to shoot down anything that comes near them unless we are in a literal combat situation.

This is entirely different from the original claim. Again, there's a huge difference between "shoot anything that's a threat" and "shoot anything that comes near you."

I'm just trying to get some people to acknowledge that, because we've had 3 posters so far claim that our Navy has, for years, had orders to shoot anything that comes near them, which is not true. I know this seems like nitpicking, but it is a crucial, if subtle, difference and people need to understand it.

You've made a number of false assumptions in your replies to me, like that I don't know anything about the military, or that I thought Israel would nuke Iran in a war. You also initially thought I was defending Iran, which I wasn't. Clearly your powers of deduction need work. You've been misunderstanding me since the beginning of our exchange.

Please, slow down, re-read, drop the defensiveness, and maybe we can have a real discussion here. We might even be in complete agreement on everything, you just don't realize it because you keep misunderstanding my posts. No one else here does, so don't even try to blame it on me "not being clear" or something.

And thanks for your service.

a reply to: face23785

And thank you for your service .

originally posted by: AutomateThis1

When you mention sailors afraid to shoot that's because their commands failed to train them properly and are usually too inundated with the PC culture that has plagued the military in the past decade or so.

I wish more people understood this. I was in from 2004-2016. The amount of PC nonsense we waste our time on instead of training for our actual mission grew steadily over the years, especially once Obama was in office. Combine that with reduced manpower, where every supervisor was doing 2 or 3 jobs instead of just focusing on 1, and the funding cuts, and we were in pretty bad shape by the time I got out.

And just because I mentioned Obama doesn't mean I think it was all his fault. Congress has a lot to do with it too, not to mention a lot of our officers becoming more like politicians the higher they go in rank.

a reply to: face23785

2012-2017 Second Class Petty Officer Fire Controlman here.

So, I served under Obama the whole time. No senior enlisted personnel I met actually liked Obama or anything going on at the time.

A lot of grumbling to be honest, some more vocal than others. With almost no reprimand of outright showing disdain for the president at the time.

When we had to do the PC training we would either skip it or just sit their and groan. A lot of "Yeah right".

We even had openly gay sailors on my ship and they even hated having to go through the training. We had an understanding. Your personal life only matters if it affects your work. Your work comes first. We have a mission and we had to do whatever we could to make sure we that mission was accomplished.

We hated PC training because it took hours out of maintenance and other necessary work. And when you have a maintenance schedule that runs 24/7 and it gets interruoted it puts everything behind.

My CO personally came down to the O3 level once to breathe down my neck asking me why one of his CIWS mounts was still down. I told him that I had to go to the diversity training and that took an hour, and he said next time I get out on a list thay no matter what anyone says I tell them to shove it and keep working.

a reply to: AutomateThis1

Good officers make all the difference, and there are never enough of them. And peace time (or low-intensity conflict) is the worst because all the things you want in combat commanders are discouraged or leashed, which means the people with the right qualities are not always making their way up, and too many of the wrong kind are being promoted beyond their means.
This is by no means limited to us, and we're better than the vast majority of others, but it happens enough to be concerning.
If it comes time for conflict, go big or go home. Let's not pussyfoot around if it's important enough that our people are going to bleed. And if it's NOT that important, then let's go home.

originally posted by: AutomateThis1

When we had to do the PC training we would either skip it or just sit their and groan. A lot of "Yeah right".

We even had openly gay sailors on my ship and they even hated having to go through the training. We had an understanding. Your personal life only matters if it affects your work. Your work comes first. We have a mission and we had to do whatever we could to make sure we that mission was accomplished.

Exactly! There were a few gay folks I served with and they all felt the same way. That's because the kind of people who want to serve in the military are generally not the victim-mentality-type, whether they're gay, straight, or whatever. They don't give a # about that garbage.

We hated PC training because it took hours out of maintenance and other necessary work. And when you have a maintenance schedule that runs 24/7 and it gets interruoted it puts everything behind.

My CO personally came down to the O3 level once to breathe down my neck asking me why one of his CIWS mounts was still down. I told him that I had to go to the diversity training and that took an hour, and he said next time I get out on a list thay no matter what anyone says I tell them to shove it and keep working.

Sounds familiar. Everyone at the lower levels knew it was pointless bull#, it was just CYA nonsense that the higher-ups could pawn off to Congress to say they were doing something about these "problems."

originally posted by: RadioRobert
a reply to: AutomateThis1

Good officers make all the difference, and there are never enough of them.

This right here.

a reply to: face23785

Just don't tell anyone I said that. It's just a secret between you, me, and the internet.

Looks like the only armament is one 50 caliber machine gun mounted on the bow. "
Real scary, no?

originally posted by: CharlesT
Looks like the only armament is one 50 caliber machine gun mounted on the bow. "
Real scary, no?

Yeah, 50-cals are totally not a threat. I get shot by them routinely, the bullets just bounce off if you're man enough. Our Navy needs to toughen up, right?

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: CharlesT
Looks like the only armament is one 50 caliber machine gun mounted on the bow. "
Real scary, no?

Yeah, 50-cals are totally not a threat. I get shot by them routinely, the bullets just bounce off if you're man enough. Our Navy needs to toughen up, right?

Lol yea , its not like the kinetic energy of a .50cal round spinning past your face is going nearly rip your face off, much less it actually making contact with you.

a reply to: CharlesT

They usually have some kind of missile capability as well. Different boats have different weapons mounted.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: CharlesT

They usually have some kind of missile capability as well. Different boats have different weapons mounted.

Not to mention there are plenty of things that don't have to be mounted to be dangerous.

originally posted by: asabuvsobelow

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: CharlesT
Looks like the only armament is one 50 caliber machine gun mounted on the bow. "
Real scary, no?

Yeah, 50-cals are totally not a threat. I get shot by them routinely, the bullets just bounce off if you're man enough. Our Navy needs to toughen up, right?

Lol yea , its not like the kinetic energy of a .50cal round spinning past your face is going nearly rip your face off, much less it actually making contact with you.

If you cannot take a ma deuce burst to the abdomen without flinching, you have no business being out on the water.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
The problem is that there's a quiet civil war going on between the moderates and IRGC. If you look at all of these incidents, every one of them is an IRGC unit. The Iranian military is separate from the IRGC, and they're professional, and don't pull things for the most part.

I agree with this. One thing that I wanted to ask, isn't this in one sense just overblown bluster?

I mean, there are quite a few similar incidents going on not just with Iran, but Russia and who knows what's up in the South China Sea. Some available on youtube or news and many not - at least that is my interpretation.

And, just to add, Iran's or whoever's speedboats should not be allowed to get that close as it is just too unpredictable knowing the potential danger.

I get the Russians bumping boats like morons now and then it just seems way more unpredictable.

That said, doesn't this happen a lot? Is this particular footage any different form how these IRGC boats have been buzzing just about everyone lately?

a reply to: ColoradoJens

Well if the IRGC keeps harassing/attacking US troops the The rest of Iran won't have to worry about them.