U.S. Navy Ship Outruns Pursuing Pirates

UPI ^ | May 7, 2009

[nickcarraway]

Suspected pirates failed in an effort to attack a U.S. Navy ship off the eastern coast of Somalia. the Navy said Thursday.

Two skiffs, assumed to be pirate vessels, chased the Lewis and Clark, a dry cargo and ammunition ship supporting the Navy's Fifth Fleet, for more than an hour Wednesday before giving up, CNN reported.

During the pursuit, the skiffs fired small arms at the Lewis and Clark and got within one nautical mile before the ship used evasive maneuvers and pulled out of range.

[TigersEye]

I am amazed at the pathetic excuses for this being offered on this thread. Not armed? How expensive would it be to outfit it with about four MaDeuces? Not a combat vessel? Who, in their right mind, would consider engaging a couple of ragtag pirate boats combat?

[SmithL]

USS Lewis & Clark was decommissioned long ago.

[downtownconservative]

How does one keep up with such things??

[DesScorp]

"When the Marines were taken off of ships starting in the late '80s, this is what one of the unintended consequences turned out to be."

That's not an excuse. Sailors can still fight, and all throughout our history, they were exptected to do both boarding parties and landing parties when Marines weren't around, which, considering how small the Corps was before WWII (back when it was actually a corps, and not a seaborne army), light infantry was a regular duty of American sailors.

I collect old Bluejackets' Manuals, and until fairly recently, light infantry training was a big part of the Navy's basic training. This is taken from my 1940 edition:



Just a few years prior, navy recruits also had to qualify with the Browning .30 cal machine guns as well. Also, keep in mind that support ships like the Lewis and Clark are no longer ships of the line. They're now US Naval Ships (USNS instead of USS), and are now largely staffed by merchant mariners on contract with the Navy. USNS ships can in reality hardly even be considered naval vessels the way we currently operate. They're just merchant ships with a coat of grey paint, for all practical purposes.

[SoCalPol]

The Lewis and Clark along with several other names explores
are the name of these new Sealift command supply ships.

The are built here in San Diego

[Big_Monkey]

I think you raise some great points. I'm a former Marine, so I'm a little biased, but you're right, it doesn't have to be Marines that defend a ship from marauders. But, from what I understand, the Navy now gives it's recruits extremely limited training in small arms or close combat skills that would be necessary to repel boarders in such a scenario.

[Cuttnhorse]

I don’t think the Navy gives any small arms familiarization to sailors these days...heck, I was on Swift Boats in Nam and spent a week at Pendleton doing small arms fam...if it wasn’t for that I would not have touched a small arm, except for a .45 ACP which we carried when on quarterdeck watch...which was empty.

[DesScorp]

"I think you raise some great points. I'm a former Marine, so I'm a little biased, but you're right, it doesn't have to be Marines that defend a ship from marauders. But, from what I understand, the Navy now gives it's recruits extremely limited training in small arms or close combat skills that would be necessary to repel boarders in such a scenario"

Currently, the amount of training the Navy gives for these situations is pathetic; basically, just a couple of hours on a firing range with a pistol. That's it. The good news is that sailors on the new Littoral Combat Ships are expected to be "do everything" sailors, very similar to the kind of sailors we used to have... and this may once again include small squad tactics and landing parties. Perhaps this will eventually make its way to the fleet, and thus all Navy recruit training. We'll see.

[Strategerist]

Even with some pintle-mounted .50s there’s really no point in risking an engagement if you don’t have to have one. There are places on any ship where a really lucky RPG shot can do some damage.

I don’t have a problem with this ships’ actions.

[Jmouse007]

No it is not a gun ship but as a former US Navy man I can tell you they have weapons on board. On top of that THEY HAVE THE HIGH GROUND and could have blasted them to bits. Why they didn't turn around and blow them out of the water is beyond me. "Obamessiah the Weak" must have standing orders for us to tuck our tails and run away.

Disgusting

[river rat]

Okay -- I'll speak more slowly, clearly and try to avoid threatening the racially sensitive....whose first reaction to anyone criticizing ANYONE black is to pull their head out of their ass and scream "RACIST"...

1st point: The ship is DEFINED as a U.S. Naval Vessel in the article - and is described as "a dry cargo and ammunition ship supporting the Navy's Fifth Fleet".

2nd point: The ship was attacked in an area the Navy HAD to know was subject to pirate attacks by African Muslims -- since it's been in all the papers. < /sarcasm>
An overwhelming majority of "African Muslim" pirates are black...

3rd point: One would assume our military forces NEEDED the "dry cargo and ammunition" or they wouldn't have shipped it half way around the world..

4th point: The U.S. Navy must have something in their Mission Statement and ROE that requires them to practice "Force Protection", using lethal force if threatened......
Military supply lines - INCLUDING merchant ships on the high seas carrying war material, comes under that mandate.

5th point: I haven't already forgotten that our black poseur of a President - ordered the Navy to stand down when an American Captain was held by pirates a short time ago, until "his folks - the FBI arrived to negotiate"....
Why did this black President feel the FBI needed to be involved in dealing with black pirates on the high seas?

6th point: Since nearly 97% of blacks in America voted for and celebrate the first black President, the media hails him as the black messiah who is the smartest man to ever serve as President (even though NONE of them or us has seen ANY DOCUMENTATION to substantiate that claim) and the President himself never misses an opportunity to call attention to his uniqueness as a black President -- I find it a simple matter of logic to frame criticism of his actions as a black President...

Finally - one can't help but wonder if our current President would behave as he has against Black African Muslim pirates, if he was not himself a black who celebrates his African roots and was born to a Muslim father, adopted by a Muslim father, personally stated his familiarity and admiration for aspects of Islam and some suspect is STILL a Muslim.....

If it's racist to question Obama's history, truthfulness, intellect, loyalty, anti American friendships, anti American behavior and general deportment as a congenital liar and narcissist -- then the term racist has been redefined to describe one who refuses to drink the politically correct Kool-Aid.

[river rat]

How far would you run to hide?

When do you stand and fight against bastards who think you’re fair game to rob, rape or kill?

Do you avoid a fight with them NOW, allowing them to become even stronger and more dangerous — to threaten your children or grandchildren?

Our “civilization” has become far to “civilized” to survive for long......

[ZX12R]

Even with some pintle-mounted .50s there’s really no point in risking an engagement if you don’t have to have one. There are places on any ship where a really lucky RPG shot can do some damage. I don’t have a problem with this ships’ actions.

What about the downside of just leaving them there to attack the next ship that comes along? Maybe it will be an unarmed U.S. ship.

[river rat]

Roger that...

Earlier in this thread - I made the point that this is occurring under a black African President - whom some suspect of STILL having Muslim sympathies....

I was called a racist....

That is the level to which critical discourse has declined in this forum..... We have the WRONG President to deal with the current threats to our Republic -- for economic to energy independence or national security....

[Carry_Okie]

There are places on any ship where a really lucky RPG shot can do some damage.

Waaah. Then 20mm, or whatever it takes. My point is that at no time in WWII would we have been so stupid. We are virtually assuring that the Muzzie pirates will feel safe doing exactly what you needlessly fear by completely disarming supply ships and ordering them to avoid all confrontation. Such behavior places the time and place of a real attack at the enemy's discretion with virtually guaranteed substantial loss of life. Best that they not know what we are going to do and force them to maintain a safe distance.

[Northern Yankee]

It's a Navy ship for cryin out loud!

You got ammunition? Use it!

All Navy ships patrolling those waters should be armed.

[publana]

Now that was funny.

[Kozak]

How hard would it be to arm it with a few 50 Cal’s, and maybe a few Dragon missile launchers?

[King Moonracer]

We ship ammo in unarmed boats??? How about gold? We deserve Obama. We’re stupid

[NavyCanDo]

“It's a Navy ship for cryin out loud!”

As it has been said over and over again on this thread it is a Navy owned ship BUT operated by civilians. USNS not USS. Like someone else said, a merchant ship with a coat of gray paint.