First let me stipulate. I wasn't there so I don't know. Second, I'm going strictly off news reports. Third, big stuff is happening in the Strait of Hormuz so the Navy has been gearing up for weeks to fight in this area.
So the question.
Why wasn't this supply ship better covered? Where was Maritime Expeditionary Security Force? Where were the helo's and aircraft providing overwatch?
Our own smallboats providing protection?
Where was the protection?
First is is not a supply ship. Its a Fleet Oiler part of CLF. Second, it was "covered" by an onboard EST. Third, they were following ROE. Fourth, since when does an oiler steaming independently get its own CAP? Fifth, it has RHIBs but they are not equipped as Navy standard models.
ReplyDeleteWhile Ihave long said that MSC ships should have Naval Armed Guards on them, the USN has steadfastly refused to accept the idea of armed naval auxiliaries.
What else do you want?
initial reports said it was a supply shipt...but as to why it doesn't get its own cap....that came from the area in which its sailing. who is going to send out a high value target like this (and its a high value target...especially considering the need to supply the fleet) and add to it the threats that US ships have faced in this region in the past and it would make sense to have beefed up security.
ReplyDeletei'm not talking about the navy changing the way that it does business just to modify them because of the region in which this ship was sailing.
Sol most MSC ships are not considered HVTs, not that I like that just the way the big blue navy worrks.
ReplyDeleteThe ships have mounts for minimal FP weapons, they could be up-gunned but againthe USN refuses to do that (like the RFA has done).
Procedurally the amount of FP that CLF ships gets is based on COCOM/Fleet rqmts. Maybe you should your questions of the brass?~