Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Iranian Boats May Not Have Made Radio Threat, Pentagon Says
The Washington Post ^ | Jan 11, 2008 | Robin Wright

Posted on 01/11/2008 5:55:17 AM PST by RDTF

The Pentagon said yesterday that the radio threat to bomb U.S. warships in the Persian Gulf last weekend may not have come from the five Iranian Revolutionary Guard speedboats that approached them -- and may not even have been intended against U.S. targets.

The communication Sunday was made on radio channel 16, a common marine frequency used by ships and others in the region. "It could have been a threat aimed at some other nation or a myriad of other things," said Rear Adm. Frank Thorp IV, a spokesman for the Navy.

In the radio message recorded by the Navy, a heavily accented voice said, "I am coming to you. You will explode after a few minutes." But Farsi speakers and Iranians told The Washington Post that the accent did not sound Iranian.

In part because of the threatening language, the United States has elevated the encounter into an international incident. Twice this week, President Bush criticized Iran's behavior as provocative and warned of "serious consequences" if it happens again. He is due to head today to the Gulf area, where containing Iran is expected to be a major theme of his talks in five oil-rich sheikdoms.

Pentagon officials insist that they never claimed Iran made the threat. "No one in the military has said that the transmission emanated from those boats. But when they hear it simultaneously to the behavior of those boats, it only adds to the tension," said Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell. "If this verbal threat emanated from something or someone unrelated to the five boats, it would not lessen the threat from those boats."

-snip-

(Excerpt) Read more at cleveland.com ...


TOPICS: Extended News; News/Current Events; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: hormuz; iran; usn
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-64 next last
To: waimea.man
You are confused. Iran Air Flight 655 was an Airbus A300 and the crew of the Vincennes screwed the pooch.

""The data from USS Vincennes tapes, information from USS Sides and reliable intelligence information, corroborate the fact that [Iran Air Flight 655] was on a normal commercial air flight plan profile, in the assigned airway, squawking Mode III 6760, on a continuous ascent in altitude from takeoff at Bandar Abbas to shoot-down."

41 posted on 01/11/2008 6:48:01 AM PST by A.A. Cunningham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: massgopguy; waimea.man

No he’s not.


42 posted on 01/11/2008 6:49:31 AM PST by A.A. Cunningham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: The Great RJ
Certainly the US Navy or other US agencies monitoring radio traffic in that part of the world

"Gentlemen don't read each other's mail."
Henry L. Stimson, Secretary of State, 1929.

43 posted on 01/11/2008 6:52:22 AM PST by ASA Vet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: RDTF
#16 is universal in the boating world. It gets to everyone in range, then you switch to a discrete signal. The US Coast guard always broadcast on16 to get to the boating public.
It is quiet understandable that the bad guys use 16. How could they know what discrete frequency the US was using? They are not really Navy, just a bunch of hoods and worse.
44 posted on 01/11/2008 6:54:58 AM PST by primatreat ( Hold political and scientific idiots responsible by taking their money away!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RDTF

It “could” have been a stray transmission from a Martian UFO, broadcasting on marine VHF 16, the international marine hailing freq.

Occam’s Razor says it was the Iranian speedboats who were buzzing our ships.


45 posted on 01/11/2008 6:55:02 AM PST by Travis McGee (---www.EnemiesForeignAndDomestic.com---)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: A.A. Cunningham

And putting something in quotes, without attribution, makes something a fact? (Just kidding. I stand corrected.)


46 posted on 01/11/2008 7:09:22 AM PST by waimea.man
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Candor7

It was a joke. ;-)


47 posted on 01/11/2008 7:14:44 AM PST by LetsRok
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: LetsRok
It was a joke. ;-) Iranian sea garbage has a way of blowing up.Oooops!

Who woulda thunk it?

48 posted on 01/11/2008 7:16:33 AM PST by Candor7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: CodeMasterPhilzar
So what kind of surface action would the speedboats be heading into? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Enlarge your strategic picture. On the adjacent Islands are dozens of anti ship cruise missile launch sites.

The small boats provoke the US ships to fire on them.

I order to retaliate to this act of war, the Iranians immediatel launch a couple of dozen Silk worms and other cruise missiles. Some are bound to get through.

Remaining small craft then attack, killing anyone left in the water.

Those Iranian small boats are carrion boats in the tradition of Barbary pirates.

Solution:

We take the islands and turn them into a DMZ.

Navy Seals ! On deck!

49 posted on 01/11/2008 7:21:49 AM PST by Candor7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: ArrogantBustard

I can’t believe they didn’t use something to track them.


50 posted on 01/11/2008 8:20:07 AM PST by stuartcr (Election year.....Who we gonna hate, in '08?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: nuconvert

I think we should have blown them out of the water no matter who was on the radio. Did we already forget what happened to the USS Cole?


51 posted on 01/11/2008 8:39:35 AM PST by peeps36 (OUTLAWED WORDS--INSURGENT,GLOBAL WARMING,UNDOCUMENTED WORKER,PALESTINIAN,TERMINATED PREGNANCY)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: GovernmentIsTheProblem

Well, it’s not like the ships themselves could not tell where the transmission are coming from...

Description: AN/SRS-1 Combat DF Block 0 is a signal acquisition and direction-finding system providing warship commanders with near-real-time indications and warning, situational awareness, and cueing information for targeting. Combat DF greatly improves on existing signals intelligence technology by providing greater flexibility against a wider range of threat signals and increased reliability at lower cost through use of COTS workstations. The Block 1 (AN/SRS-1A) system incorporates the Automated Digital Acquisition Subsystem (ADAS) upgrade enabling exploitation of unconventional and low-probability-of-intercept (LPI) signals.

Program Status: Block 1 is now in Full-Rate Production and is being installed during new-ship construction on Wasp (LHD-1) and Flight II and Flight IIA (DDG 72-95)-class ships. Block 0 systems are also being upgraded with ADAS as back-fits on in-service LHD-1s and DDG-51s originally outfitted with SRS-1. The Block 1 system will eventually outfit seven LHDs, 24 DDG-51 Flight IIs, and four shore sites. Beginning in Fiscal Year 2000, Combat DF has been superseded by the Cooperative Outboard Baseline Logistics Update (COBLU ) Phase 1 system during construction of DDG-96 and follow-on Aegis destroyers and on LHD-8 (if fully funded and built).

Developer/Manufacturer: Sanders, Nashua, New Hampshire.

DOn’t know if they had any of these on hand...
Description: The SSQ-120(V) Transportable-Radio Direction Finder (T-RDF) provides a low-cost Medium/High/Very High/Ultra High Frequency (MF/HF/VHF/UHF) Direction Finding (DF) capability to selected U.S. Navy ships. The receiving and processing equipment is located in a single below-decks equipment rack located in the Ship Signals Exploitation System (SSES) space. A ship receives a permanent “pre-groom” which consists of antennas, cables, and equipment rack. When needed, an equipment suite is carried onboard and installed in the equipment rack. The system can be operated independently in a “stand-alone” mode, or it can be remotely operated via software resident on a SSEE or ACCES system.

Program Status: At the end of Fiscal Year 2001, 19 T-RDF equipment suites have been fielded for use in both Atlantic and Pacific Fleets.

Developer/Manufacturer: Southwest Research Institute, San Antonio, Texas.

Oh, and this -

Old Crows Rule (whoo-hoo)


52 posted on 01/11/2008 9:09:03 AM PST by ASOC (The Captain doesn't choose the storm....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: ASOC

Cool stuff, not my area of expertise!

Thx for the post.


53 posted on 01/11/2008 9:13:21 AM PST by GovernmentIsTheProblem (The GOP is "Whig"ing out.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: All

I have to say, that it sounded VERY robotic.


54 posted on 01/11/2008 9:38:32 AM PST by jackibutterfly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: GovernmentIsTheProblem

Sur ‘nuf. While not a SLQ-32, the RDF stuff does have its uses.

But, it has to be used.


55 posted on 01/11/2008 9:52:26 AM PST by ASOC (The Captain doesn't choose the storm....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: jackibutterfly

The voice sounded to me like the giant in the movie the princess bride, where he and his friends are storming the castle.

“I am coming for youuuuuuuu! I am the Dread Pirate Robert! You will all dieeeeeeeee!”


56 posted on 01/11/2008 10:24:33 AM PST by yellow rubber ducky (One day I realized I am living in Bizarro world.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: Rb ver. 2.0

Our CO’s standing orders while we were there was a 2000 yard exclusion zone, day or night...

Of course that was back in the heyday of the 80’s, when it wasn’t cool to be in the Persian Gulf...

Ask someone back then and they’d say...

“Persian Gulf??? Where’s that??”


57 posted on 01/11/2008 10:30:59 AM PST by stevie_d_64 (Houston Area Texans (I've always been hated))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: IrishMike

No, but Ron Paul compared it to the Gulf of Tonkin incident.


58 posted on 01/11/2008 10:34:32 AM PST by ichabod1 ("Self defense is not only our right, it is our duty." President Ronald Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: SomeReasonableDude
demanded an ID

Perhaps they intended to board the ships and take prisoners. American military personnel tend to refuse such requests.

59 posted on 01/11/2008 10:35:40 AM PST by RightWhale (Dean Koonz is good, but my favorite authors are Dun and Bradstreet)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: RDTF
"The Pentagon said...."

What? Now they are taking it back? I wish they would get their story straight before announcing it to the world. Now all the kooks (democrats & MSM) have even more ammo to avoid taking on the Iranian threat.....

60 posted on 01/11/2008 3:52:57 PM PST by blasater1960 ( Dt 30, Ps 111, The Law is perfect, attainable, now and forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-64 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson